Iger Planning to Kill Imagineering?

[Sarangel]

Here's the Article (http://jimhillmedia.com/blogs/jim_hill/print/4475.aspx) from Jim Hill. In it he discusses the possibility of Iger laying off most of WDI, in order to make the process (and end product) work better.

[mjstaceyuofm]

Very interesting. So far (imho) Iger hasn't made any bad moves since taking over Disney. If imagineering is as dysfunctional as JH writes in his article, then this really is a good move. I guess time will tell but what's really important is that they keep their core, creative people - who those are, I have no idea, but I'd assume there are a few there still....

[YoHo]

Well of course WDI is filled with schemeing backstabber. The whole company is filled with middle managment jerks with no love of the company.

The worst part about that article is that he conviently forgets that a couple years ago Eisner slashed most of the creative WDI jobs already. Maybe, if they had cut middle managment instead of artists, they wouldn't have had this problem in the first place.

[cxcelica]

I am taking the article at face value and don’t know if Jim Hill has a reason to exaggerate the problems or not, but I think it is actually a good thing what Iger is doing. Noone likes to see people lose their job, but it sounds like they are cutting out the poison of the company. If 200-300 people were doing this much damage to the company then I see no reason why they should not be let go!!! Surely there are some downsides to things not being kept in house any more, but I don’t see them outweighing the positives. If by letting these people go, Iger is confident that productivity and creation of rides/attractions will increase more efficiently and more cost-effectively than he has to do it. In the end the customer will benefit and so will the shareholders!

[ChrisFL]

So basically if this is true then WDI will not be WDI but outsourced on a project basis?

somehow I dont know if they can keep quality control that way.

[yearbook50]

I hope not. I want to be an Imagineer. :(

[Horace Horsecollar]

I hope not. I want to be an Imagineer. :(
There will be Imagineers as long as Disney keeps enhancing their theme parks and resorts — but it seems that an ever-increasing percentage of those Imagineers don't work directly for The Walt Disney Company.

Even back in the days when Walt ran the show, WED turned to outside companies. For example, the innovative Matterhorn ride system was built by Arrow Development. However, Disneyland's real creative work was performed by Walt's trusted creative staff.

Does it really matter if an attraction was designed and built by Disney Imagineering or by BRC Imagination Arts? The attraction should be immersive, entertaining, and just as fun the tenth time as the first time. That's what really matters.

To me, it seems that the best way to achieve high quality attractions is to nurture a highly skilled, highly creative, in-house organization that applies its experience to make Disney's worldwide theme parks better year after year.

However, the reality is that many Disney Imagineers were let go years ago, and Disney (and other companies) contract with outside design and fabrication companies — who employ many of the same Imagineers that Disney let go.

[YoHo]

While they retained the useless middle managers that caused all the problems. This all a bunch of closing the barn door after the horse has run off.

[DVCconvert]

Having done independent contract work for WDI, I can say that this has been an expanding trend for years and I think likely to continue. That said, I believe there will always be a core in control at WDI.

[erikthewise]

It is possible that after the inefficiencies and "deadwood" are cleared out, they will later find it convenient to take on a reduced number of permanent design/art/engineering personnel in addition to planners and managers. While the current trend in this and other industries is to "outsource everything", it's just that, a trend. It's unlikely that it's the best way to do everything. There is such a thing as institutional memory, and it does have value.

But sometimes changes have to be made this way. At least Disney has this option. Now if only we could do the same thing with Congress and the Pentagon.

[mjstaceyuofm]

While they retained the useless middle managers that caused all the problems. This all a bunch of closing the barn door after the horse has run off.Nobody's disputing that fact and maybe Iger sees it too. Maybe this is damage control that Iger views as an opportunity to set the creative arm of the company up for better times... I agree with erikthewise (and maybe Iger does too) - that by clearing out the crap and hay from the stables and cleaning up the barn a little bit, they might be able to attract a few prize-winning animals.

[cxcelica]

It seems from the report that Iger intends to keep intact a group to design and create and come up with artistic ideas, but when it comes time to put paper into reality it will seek outside assistance. I don't see a real problem with this. If Disney is still creating the ideas and concepts but some other company is putting them into action more quickly and more cost effictively but with the same quality(very important) is that really a problem?!

I also disagree that "outsourcing" in general is a "trend". At this point it is a way of business and with the global economy growing it will only become more entrenched.

[Another Voice]

I want to be an Imagineer.
They’re haven’t been any real ones in about five years.

Disney has been closing down WDI project by project for five years now. All of the creative staff – the ones with the original ideas – have already been fired. The only people left were the middle management with the political skills to avoid the layoffs.

This has been a process that’s been in the making for a long time. Eisner hated Imagineering from the first day. He dumped as much blame for the failures on Euro Disney as possible on them. Then, after being banned from California Adventure, turned around and tried to dump the blame on them for that as well. Things have only gotten worse when WDI was changed from an independent business unit into a division of the parks.

According to the rumors, in this is how new rides will be developed in the future. Each park will develop a long term marketing plan. These will be coordinated at Corporate and turned into a “facility addition” action plan. Various outside (e.g., non-Disney) companies will be asked to submit ideas for attractions. Disney corporate will select the idea that fits into as many parks’ plans as possible and order the required number. Almost all rides will go into multiple parks – one of WDI’s primary jobs will be to resell these attractions to Tokyo, Paris and Hong Kong. The out side company will design and construct the ride; WDI will work on fitting the ride into the park’s existing infrastructure.

In a lot of ways this is a “studio” approach to making movies – a movie is actually made by an outside production company and then marketed by a studio. Disney has been using this method for a while now – it brought us the Pop Century Hotel and most of ‘Mission: Space’ (the ride designers were fired because they objected to how Disney was running the project’s management).

What this really means is the end of the unique Disney attraction. The best Disney rides have been the ones where Imagineers sat around and dreamed up their wildest adventures – exploring a haunted house, going on a pirate adventure, traveling to outer space – and then figuring out how to make their dreams real.

Now we get salesmen pitching their company’s latest wares, competing for the lowest price to fill a bullet point on a PowerPoint presentation. Welcome to Six Flags over Orlando.

[GrimGhost]

..... Eisner hated Imagineering from the first day. He dumped as much blame for the failures on Euro Disney as possible on them...
Funny, Ive read just the opposite, he found them kindred spirits in that he considered himself creative and the heir to Walts legacy and ability. Theme Park executives on the on the other hand, yes, he had disdain for them. He once said ' Any monkey could run the theme parks'.

.....And hey, weren't we talking about Bob Iger? Ofcourse, I for one don't believe him to be the "mini-Eisner" others do.

[MJMcBride]

What this really means is the end of the unique Disney attraction. The best Disney rides have been the ones where Imagineers sat around and dreamed up their wildest adventures – exploring a haunted house, going on a pirate adventure, traveling to outer space – and then figuring out how to make their dreams real.


Where does Expedition Everest fit. I haven't done it yet, but it seems like a unique attraction.

[mjstaceyuofm]

I was waiting for AV to jump in on this thread..... Basically, what AV says backs up the need to clean house in imagineering if the only ones left are imanagers as opposed to imagineers.

I'll stick to my hope that the greater plan is to clean house, get a core of creative people in there to oversee creative content and then hire a bunch of hawks to make sure outside companies deliver "the magic" (as envisioned by those uber-creative imagineers) on attractions... That really is the way things have gone in the business world of late. There's too many technologies/areas for people to master - even an imagineer. At some point you need some specialty firms to handle things.

I wonder where Lasseter fit into all this? Maybe he can help stock WDI with some good creative minds....

[Keyser]

I was going to start a new thread about this, but it fits in too well with this one. Today at the SIGGRAPH conference, Joe Rohde gave the keynote talk. He's an Imagineering executive, the chief designer of AK and most recently the Expedition Everest Ride. Most of his talk focused on the development of EE. It was incredibly interesting. Most of the talk focused on the nature of storytelling, the importance of theme (as opposed to setting) and that sort of thing. I haven't seen the EE ride myself, but from this talk I am amazed at the amount of background work that went into it.

They’re haven’t been any real ones in about five years.

Disney has been closing down WDI project by project for five years now. All of the creative staff – the ones with the original ideas – have already been fired. The only people left were the middle management with the political skills to avoid the layoffs.


It was kind of bizarre for me to read this today, just hours after hearing Rohde's talk. The strong impression I got from him (at least in regards to the development of EE - maybe this was the last of the original rides) was 180 degrees different from what you're saying, here. Everything he discussed about the ride (other than the initial directive to put together a thrill ride for AK) seems to have been done with a lot of thought. It's certainly far from picking up an external ride and slapping decorations on to it. His talk outlined the whole process they went through, from picking the idea for the ride all the way down to how they designed the ride details, and how all of this fit into the storytelling framework. He spent a lot of time emphasizing the need for telling a story and how that can be done in a physical installation.


What this really means is the end of the unique Disney attraction. The best Disney rides have been the ones where Imagineers sat around and dreamed up their wildest adventures – exploring a haunted house, going on a pirate adventure, traveling to outer space – and then figuring out how to make their dreams real.

Now we get salesmen pitching their company’s latest wares, competing for the lowest price to fill a bullet point on a PowerPoint presentation. Welcome to Six Flags over Orlando.

Boy, if this is the case, it would have to be a complete change from everything about the process as discussed today. In fact, if this talk was even somewhat reflective of the general procedure at Disney, I think you would have a much easier time of making the case that Imagineering was too focused on storytelling (!) over trying to contain costs. I can see that the detail they went into probably cost a lot of $, and honestly I think most people won't realize how deep the story for this ride goes (though maybe that's part of the point).

I've followed this board for a while, and read how many folks (including AV) lament the decline in Disney quality. Honestly, today's talk seemed exactly like the type of speech that such people would like. Really - it was completely the opposite of the bottom-line oriented management that I have seen criticized. If this was reflective of Imagineering (and it was reflective of at least one Imagineering exec), I don't think you should consider a gutting of Imagineering to be a good thing...

[DisneyFanGuy]

Hopefully Disney will keep some of the creative project leads. A small but effecient Imagineering might be a very good thing. Expand teams for individual projects. Keep full benefits staff to a minimum. If it's just a full budget slash with no direction then it's a problem. Iger hasn't made any big mistakes yet......so hopefully this isn't the first whopper. "Six Flags over Orlando" seems a bit cynical, and a bit premature.

[YoHo]

Joe Rhodes is a useless twit who mistakes urban tribalism/piercings for creativity. I wouldn't put any stock in what he tells you.

[mjstaceyuofm]

Joe Rhodes is a useless twit who mistakes urban tribalism/piercings for creativity. I wouldn't put any stock in what he tells you.Wow that's harsh! :crazy:

[ChrisFL]

Joe Rhodes is a useless twit who mistakes urban tribalism/piercings for creativity. I wouldn't put any stock in what he tells you.

For being such an expert on him you should at least be able to spell his name right.

After watching a special on the making of EE, my opinion of him would be quite the opposite

[YoHo]

After watching him wax poetic about AK in general and reading a lot of books about real imagineers like Hench and Broggie, I've determined he's a twit

[hawkrn]

Do you think that any of the current Imagineers are "real"?

[Peter Pirate 2]

Joe Rhode is agood guy and is not part of the problem even if he isn't part of the solution.
pirate:

[MJMcBride]

I agree with YoHo. I find Rohde to be particularly annoying on those Travel channel shows. The earring is just plain stupid. However, my understanding is that he fought hard to keep Beastly Kindgom alive so I'll give him credit for that at least but he's brings nothing to the table.

[YoHo]

Do you think that any of the current Imagineers are "real"?

All the Imagineers with creativity and vision and an understanding of "Disney" were fired or quit over the last 10 years as the place decended into it's current state.

[Keyser]

I agree with YoHo. I find Rohde to be particularly annoying on those Travel channel shows.

I haven't seen those shows - my one experience with him was hearing this talk. But, I honestly think that had YoHo or you (or AV) heard the talk, you would have been hard pressed to find much to disagree with, in terms of what he discussed (I could see his style getting annoying...).

I'm also not sure how to take the comment (from YoHo) to not put stock in what he says - do you mean that he doesn't really believe what he says, that though he believes it, it's not what actually occurs, or that it's not reflective of what will actually happen in the future?

The earring is just plain stupid.

I wondered about that. Actually, I couldn't even tell whether it was an earring or something hanging from his hair. What's the deal with that?

[MJMcBride]

. But, I honestly think that had YoHo or you (or AV) heard the talk

I never thought I would be clumped together with Yoho and AV on an issue. :confused3

[YoHo]

I don't mean to speak for AV, but I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that he's heard more then he cares to from Mr. Rohdes.

As to why he's saying what he says. He's a shill for the company. You wouldn't expect the ONLY Imagineer left on staff with even an ounce of clout to bash the company and it's policies would you? He wouldn't have a job and at this point, probably would sturggle getting hired anywhere else as he's likely alienated former co-workers. So yeah, he spouts the company line. Smoke and mirrors while the middle managers play their games.

Even Lasseter who I think has every intention of doing right by Imagineering(he may not be allowed to), toes the company line even as people are fired.

[MJMcBride]

I don't mean to speak for AV, but I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that he's heard more then he cares to from Mr. Rohdes.

As to why he's saying what he says. He's a shill for the company. You wouldn't expect the ONLY Imagineer left on staff with even an ounce of clout to bash the company and it's policies would you? He wouldn't have a job and at this point, probably would sturggle getting hired anywhere else as he's likely alienated former co-workers. So yeah, he spouts the company line. Smoke and mirrors while the middle managers play their games.

Even Lasseter who I think has every intention of doing right by Imagineering(he may not be allowed to), toes the company line even as people are fired.

In fairness though, when you work for a company you can't publicly knock them without risking your job and I would not expect anyone to do that, thats not fair.

But I do wish Rohdes would stop talking. He comes across as a doofus.

[YoHo]

Even Sklar who became the King of the Shills sometimes stuck his neck out.

[crazy4wdw]

Joe Rhodes is a useless twit who mistakes urban tribalism/piercings for creativity. I wouldn't put any stock in what he tells you.

Warrning - please be careful about posting insulting comments regarding disboard members or disney cast members

[Another Voice]

Everything he discussed about the ride (other than the initial directive to put together a thrill ride for AK) seems to have been done with a lot of thought.
That’s exactly the weakness of this entire process. He was told “here’s a roller coaster, make it look pretty.”

No one grows up with a life long fantasy of riding a tea train in Nepal. You might meet a few that are interested in the Yeti myth (although I think more would be interested in Bigfoot) – but for the most part people just don’t care about that one. It’s a rather obsure and interesting topic.

Take a look at all of Disney big classic attractions. All of them focus on a widely held, impossible to fulfill childhood fantasy. People want to explore a haunted house, ride a steamboat through the Frontier, fly to the moon or Mars, sail with pirates, share a favorite character’s adventure.

‘Expedition: Everest’ just doesn’t fit. Not only does it lack in the “life long wish” factor, but is riding a train through they Himalyas really impossible? I can’t explore a house and see real ghosts, I can’t zoom off to shoot the bad guys with Buzz, I can’t listen to Lincoln give a speech – but one call to a travel agent and I sure can be out their searching for yellow snow. Why should I drop five grand to visit WDW to fulfill my fantasy when it’s cheaper to go to the real place?

People are willing to pay big bucks to have their dreams brought to life. That’s the reason Disneyland and WDW are mega-billion dollar earners.

The reality of the situation was that the suits decided they need to put another rollercoaster at WDW. The initial idea was to put it in the Magic Kingdom because of Disney’s desire to compete against Universal’s Islands of Adventure for the teenage bucks (I mean, it’s work so well for U.O., hasn’t it). But there were enough Power Point presentations of marketing surveys to show them that maybe Animal Kingdom wasn’t keeping the guests around long enough.

It wasn’t “what’s a great experience people have always want to have that involves animals?”. The design exercise was to make the coaster “fit”. That’s a fundamentally weak way to start any project and it shows up the overall weakness of ‘Expedition: Everest’. It’s a cheap thrill ride with no lasting impact. It’s this decade’s ‘Body Wars’ ( an attraction that had a very similar design history as ‘Everest’).


P.S. Plastering eighteen hundred yeti references and a plate of faux yeti poo in the line isn’t storytelling. That’s been a problem with Joe since the beginning. He can’t tell the difference between “story” and “plot”. He really should be designing for Vegas.

[exDS vet]

Take a look at all of Disney big classic attractions. All of them focus on a widely held, impossible to fulfill childhood fantasy. People want to explore a haunted house, ride a steamboat through the Frontier, fly to the moon or Mars, sail with pirates, share a favorite character’s adventure.

Why should I drop five grand to visit WDW to fulfill my fantasy when it’s cheaper to go to the real place?

People are willing to pay big bucks to have their dreams brought to life. That’s the reason Disneyland and WDW are mega-billion dollar earners.


A.V. I took your message out of context because I wanted to point out one major descrepency. I agree with much of the childhood fantasy, but fantasy is for the MK. People do spend money to see things at Disney that they can also see at the "real" places. Take World Showcase for example. It seems that if you had your way, it just wouldn't exist. Why would people shell out thousands of dollars to visit replicas of other countries?

People do it because it is Disney. They don't go to to see replicas of Paris and Venice. They go there to gamble, shop and see shows. They go to Disney to see theme parks and be immersed in the magic. Maybe people can't afford to see 10 different countries on one vacation, but at Epcot, they can.

At first, E.E. seemed to be getting good reviews. Now it is back to complaining that WDI didn't go far enough. Or this flaw or that. How different is the Yeti from the Abominable Snowman on the Matterhorn? I haven't rode E.E. yet, but hey, it's a Disney roller coaster. I'm sure it's a good enough experience. And good enough is what we have grown to expect from Disney during the past decade or so.

Disney's last great attraction was the Indiana Jones Adventure. Others, while good, aren't that great. At least Disney can take the steel looping coaster and put it inside a darkened building to give you a different experience. They also took a typical free fall ride and turned into another unique adventure. I think we all should cut WDI some slack and be appreciative for the things that they have accomplished. Especially during Ei$ner's run.

[WBHoenig]

First off, Iger knows that Walt would not be happy with these changes. So did Michael Eisner. So did Ron Miller (to an extent). Think about the P.R. issues. Think about the DISers that would stop gutting him so much of their hard-earned cash each year. I know I would be infuriated, and so would be Roy Edward Disney. Do we really need the third forceful ousting of a CEO by the last Disney family member to be activly engaged in the company?
Also, I'd like to comment on his numbers. 200-300 is NOT the majority of WDI. From Disney's WDI website:
Nearly 2,000 Imagineers representing over 140 disciplines are responsible for all phases of a project's development -- from master planning and "blue sky" conceptualization to design, engineering, production, construction and final installation. This blending of creative imagination with technical know-how has produced the world's best stories in the theme park vernacular.
It would be quite a blow, but not enough to kill off WDI completly. Iger would be very smart to streamline the operations, but he is NOT dumb enough (IMO) to do what this article describes.

Just my $0.02.

[YoHo]

Epcot is about the World's fair/ tomorrowland style quest for the future.

World showcase represents an aspect of that World's fair ideal. It's not just about seeing other countries, it's about how each of those countries is a part of the global village, and how we as a world are moving to the future. It's something that is, or at least was almost impossible to grasp outside of Epcot. The internet, may do the same.

[Keyser]

That’s exactly the weakness of this entire process. He was told “here’s a roller coaster, make it look pretty.”

OK, I can see what you're saying (I snipped a bunch of the related bit below) - maybe the whole corporate process is/has been broken. He said that his directive was to put a high-capacity thrill ride into AK (or something like that - I assume he had some other directives, too). But, that doesn't mean that he (or rather Imagineering) didn't do a good job at working under the constraints they were given. Again, I'm speaking only from having heard the talk and his examples - he might have cherry-picked the cases that fit the theme of his talk, and there might be a lot more that's poorly done.


No one grows up with a life long fantasy of riding a tea train in Nepal. You might meet a few that are interested in the Yeti myth (although I think more would be interested in Bigfoot) – but for the most part people just don’t care about that one. It’s a rather obsure and interesting topic.

I assume you meant uninteresting. Rohde talked for a while about why the Yeti was chosen as a theme, speaking about it's status of being revered in part as a symbol of a protector of the undeveloped/uninhabited/wild. He discussed why he thought this fell in well with the theme of Animal Kingdom - i.e. it's not just some random choice but one selected to "fit" in several ways. He even talked about the importance of making sure a ride would be an integral part of the theme of the whole park, and how it was important not to just slap a "decorative" story onto a given ride, but rather make sure the ride and everything about it fit the story you were trying to tell. He mentioned that it shouldn't be seen as a coaster ride in the park, but rather as a story that the guest experienced.


Take a look at all of Disney big classic attractions.
...
Why should I drop five grand to visit WDW to fulfill my fantasy when it’s cheaper to go to the real place?


Wow, I wouldn't think of going to the Himalayas, or on an African Safari as something really practical - I doubt I'll ever get to do either for real in my lifetime, and I travel more than most folks. Personally, I find the idea of exploring the Himalayas pretty cool, but to each his own...



P.S. Plastering eighteen hundred yeti references and a plate of faux yeti poo in the line isn’t storytelling. That’s been a problem with Joe since the beginning. He can’t tell the difference between “story” and “plot”. He really should be designing for Vegas.

I'll agree that a plate of faux yeti poo is very weak, and I see why he woudn't have mentioned it in his talk! But, the majority of his talk was actually discussing things like the differences between setting, theme, and story; the different ways you tell a story when the control varies (people exploring parts on their own, and forced through other parts); why a backstory has to be fundamental to the design of the ride from the beginning, rather than something that is later thrown on to justify a previously reached conclusion; ways of achieving subtle authenticity instead of making things seem decorated; etc. As YoHo said, maybe he was just copyng the company line here, and maybe he was just picking a few ideal examples, but he did at least have clear examples of all of these things from the EE design process. As you point out, though, the very ride itself (being given the directive to fit a coaster into AK) violates one of the principles...

[Another Voice]

Take World Showcase for example.
And it’s been a problem since the day it opened in 1982. I remember the first reviews of EPCOT Center – the vast majority of them blasted World Showcase a kitsch, as tacky, as bland and as pedestrian. And for the most part they right.

The point of great design is not that the place should look like its subject, the goal of design should be to make you feel that your in that place. Although the France pavilion does everything it can to appear like its Paris – even down to the silly mini Eiffel Tower, you don’t get the emotions of being in Paris, the feeling, the “this is exactly what I thought it would be like” kick in the gut. Some pavilions work – wander the narrow alleyways in the back of Morocco and get a whiff of the saffron from the restaurant, and you feel like you’re there.

Good design is hard to do. Even Disney at the height of its power didn’t get it right all the time. But that’s no excuse from sloppy and poor work at any time, especially today. No one gets the same rush walking into World Showcase as you get when you walk under the train tracks at step on Main Street. The difference is in the design.

Now it is back to complaining that WDI didn't go far enough.
Exactly. Thrill rides offer nothing but a short, sharp kick to the adrenal gland. It’s a physical thrill that leaves no lasting memory. But a good, story based attraction leaves an emotional impact that you remember long after the fact. People can recall riding ‘Pirates’ and ‘Mansion’ when they were little kids with great clarity. That’s the kind of attraction that people expect from Disney. They want wonder and awe and real magic – not two minutes of a runaway train.

I think we all should cut WDI some slack and be appreciative for the things that they have accomplished.
What – are we hurting their self esteem? Cutting them slack is the worst possible thing that anyone – especially the fans – can do. Disney biggest problem is the “its good enough” attitude that infects the company and the infects the fans.

The public doesn’t cut businesses slack. No one goes to the same restaurant month after month just to cut them some slack. No on pays to see a bad movie to cut the director some slack. No one watches a television show for a year to cut the producers some slack.

With all the resources Disney has we have a right to demand they at least live up to what they’ve accomplished in the past. No company survives by getting worse over the years – and the attendance record of California Adventure shows just how brutally the public can punish a firm that slacks off on the job.

Rohde talked for a while about why the Yeti was chosen as a theme, speaking about it's status of being revered in part as a symbol of a protector of the undeveloped/uninhabited/wild.
That may be the case – so how exactly is that communicated on the ride? You’re riding on an old train? How they Yeti suddenly get upset now when the trains be around for a hundred years? What part of the ride shows the Yeti protecting the wilderness, all he does is attack us? Maybe if he pushed a water buffalo off the track before we hit it – but there’s nothing like that on the ride. The Yeti is there as nothing more than a cheap thrill.

Personally, I find the idea of exploring the Himalayas pretty cool…
Again – there’s a huge difference between the impossible and the impractical. You can’t board a rocketship and fly around the Moon, no matter how much money I have (even $20 million would only have gotten Lance Bass a 100 miles high). Going on a safari (and yes, I went on one as a honeymoon) is just a matter of going to expedia.com. Given the amount of money you have to drop for a WDW trip these days, it’s probably cheaper to go to Africa. In the first instance Disney is fulfilling a dream, in the second it’s offering a discount. How magical is that?

…things like the differences between setting, theme, and story;…
Except that he doesn’t really understand them in a real, storytelling sense –the way Walt built Disneyland. Rohde doesn’t understand that viewpoint – the real difference between plot and story. He got where he was not because he’s a good designer, but because he did things on the cheap. You didn’t survive the last ten years at WDI based on your ability; you survived based on following orders from people like Pressler and Eisner.

To be blunt – there never would have been a sudden need to drop in another thrill ride into Animal Kingdom to prop up sagging attendance if Rohde has designed a place that wowed the public in the first place.

[WBHoenig]

To be blunt – there never would have been a sudden need to drop in another thrill ride into Animal Kingdom to prop up sagging attendance if Rohde has designed a place that wowed the public in the first place.

I have to agree. Before 2003 or so, Animal Kingdom IMO was the worst Disney park ever. We went once in 1998, thought it was a complete bore, and only came back in 2006 because of Everest. Then we realized it had immensly improved over those eight years.

What I know Iger also understands, if he denies it, is that this is NOT just WDI that has this attitude - it is all of corperate high-level Disney. Especially under Eisner. He does have right to change, but he can't just try to change WDI.

[ChrisFL]

I have to agree. Before 2003 or so, Animal Kingdom IMO was the worst Disney park ever.

...ever been to DCA?

[WBHoenig]

Honestly no ;) Never been to Disneyland. Our attitude is if we go to Disney, we'd rather have four parks than two.

However, I would put most of the blame here on Eisner and his extreme budget cuts. WDI was given very little time or money to create these parks.

[ChrisFL]

I've been to both DCA and AK and DCA is by far the worst...AK while lacking some attractions actually has some flow, the areas make sense, and theming done well (save for maybe dinorama)...DCA doesn't, half of it is like a cheap version of MGM studios, and part of it looks like, or IS an amusement park with no real theming, and then a few other things thrown in like the Soarin' area and the Grizzly mountain thing.

[MJMcBride]

A.V. I took your message out of context because I wanted to point out one major descrepency. I agree with much of the childhood fantasy, but fantasy is for the MK. People do spend money to see things at Disney that they can also see at the "real" places. Take World Showcase for example. It seems that if you had your way, it just wouldn't exist. Why would people shell out thousands of dollars to visit replicas of other countries?


I have to agree with exDS vet on this point. It just seems like everyone always pines for the "gold old days" in everything. They don't make music like they used to, they don't make movies like they used to, and they don't make theme parks like they use to.

I wonder if there were DIS boards in the 60s and 70s would we be panning those attractions. Frankly, I don't think everything Walt did was great by any means.

[Another Voice]

Frankly, I don't think everything Walt did was great by any means.
I absolutely agree. No one remembers the Disneyland Circus and few had life changing moments in ‘If You Had Wings’.

The difference was that Disney always tried to do good work, and they always tried to improve one what they had already achieved. Look at the huge leaps Disneyland made from its opening – from the ‘Jungle Cruise’ to ‘Star Tours’.

Disney simply doesn’t try today. They are satisfied with the “good enough”. ‘Expedition: Everest is nothing by the ‘Matterhorn’ with a new track. There is nothing new in ‘Everest’ – even the yeti is a clone.

For the last decade Disney has run its business like a typical consumer brand. It’s been offering products that are just good enough to keep open the wallets of those willing to settle for just good enough. People go to Animal Kingdom because it’s just good enough to see since you’re already at WDW; people go to California Adventure because it’s just good enough to see if it comes free with a ticket to Disneyland.

But none of these places have added new people to Disney’s consumer base. No one who scoffed at drop the five grand for a WDW was suddenly converted into a DVC owner because of Dino-Rama.

[mjstaceyuofm]

....Disney simply doesn’t try today. They are satisfied with the “good enough”. ‘Expedition: Everest is nothing by the ‘Matterhorn’ with a new track. There is nothing new in ‘Everest’ – even the yeti is a clone.

For the last decade Disney has run its business like a typical consumer brand. It’s been offering products that are just good enough to keep open the wallets of those willing to settle for just good enough. People go to Animal Kingdom because it’s just good enough to see since you’re already at WDW; people go to California Adventure because it’s just good enough to see if it comes free with a ticket to Disneyland.

But none of these places have added new people to Disney’s consumer base. No one who scoffed at drop the five grand for a WDW was suddenly converted into a DVC owner because of Dino-Rama.Having owned Macs my whole life and having several iPods in our household, I'm a firm believer that Apple and Steve Jobs aren't ones to settle for good enough. Hopefully his influence will spill over to Disney and Iger.

[YoHo]

Oooo, don't get AV started on Apple.


And frankly, if you think the Audio quality on the Ipod is anything better then good enough, you need to have your ears checked.

[barreloflaughs]

And frankly, if you think the Audio quality on the Ipod is anything better then good enough, you need to have your ears checked.

I understand that it can be made better than good by using the lossless file format and buying good (e.g., expensive) headphones and a headphone amp.

In other words........i agree with you..........not good enough...i'll pass.

barrel

[WBHoenig]

Isn't this a bit off topic? iPods and file codecs? Personally I think Apple products are worse than even Microsoft; an excellent Unix core with junk on top. Go Linux!

Back on topic, I think that Eisner has done nothing good for the company for the past decade, and on out last vacation to WDW that was very evident, however you could tell that something major had changed recently. Let's just sit back, give Iger some room here and see what he does. In the past months Animal Kingdom (for me) has become a lot more 'Disney' and therefore fun IMO; let's just see.

[MJMcBride]

Disney simply doesn’t try today.

I don't think thats fair at all. I think Disney is trying. You could even argue that Eisner tried- failed maybe- but tried. That is just an oversimplification. I can't defend Expedition Everest because I haven't tried it yet, but it seems like a great ride from various reviews and TV specials. Plus, I still say Disney has added a lot of great interesting attractions over the recent past. I know we've fought this fight before Soarin and Turtle Talk are innovative and great.

[WBHoenig]

I don't think thats fair at all. I think Disney is trying. You could even argue that Eisner tried- failed maybe- but tried. That is just an oversimplification. I can't defend Expedition Everest because I haven't tried it yet, but it seems like a great ride from various reviews and TV specials. Plus, I still say Disney has added a lot of great interesting attractions over the recent past. I know we've fought this fight before Soarin and Turtle Talk are innovative and great.

I agree 100% with this post. And By the way: E:E is an excellent ride in my opinion :thumbsup2

[barreloflaughs]

In the past months Animal Kingdom (for me) has become a lot more 'Disney' and therefore fun IMO; let's just see.

You mean they finally bulldozed Dinoland, U.S.A??? Well, alrighty then....I'm with you!

barrel

[barreloflaughs]

I don't think thats fair at all. I think Disney is trying.

"No. Try not. Do... or do not. There is no try. "...Dis-wa-nobi

Now...where can I get one of those Jedi avatars?

barrel

[YoHo]

A multiBillion dollar entertainment conglomerate needs to be given a break for trying? Are you kidding me?

[mjstaceyuofm]

Oooo, don't get AV started on Apple.


And frankly, if you think the Audio quality on the Ipod is anything better then good enough, you need to have your ears checked.Didn't know an AV quote + a reference to Apple was taboo.... ;) Now I know. Thanks.

I guess it's a matter of opinion. I think Apple provides quality, innovative products that are distinguishable from the rest. I would hope that Disney starts to do the same. I have yet to be on E:E, but I see where AV is coming from. I had the same opinion about it when I first started to hear about the ride - essentially that WDI was told to manufacture "a new E-ticket attraction and story" around a roller-coaster to boost attendance at AK. Maybe they pulled it off and made a quaility ride, maybe they didn't. AK has seemingly received a boost in attendance with E:E. We'll see if it holds up over time.

I think it's the process and lack of original outcomes that AV has a beef with. There probably was a better way to go about boosting attendance at AK. But, I guess it's hard for me to have a balanced opinion because I'm such a fan of WDW in general. Mostly I put on my WDW rose-colored glasses and can't think objectively.

By the way, I'm pretty sure my hearing is bad - too many years of listening to my Sony Walkman at exceedingly high decibels as a child coupled with working at a car-wash as a teenager (lotsa loud equipment in those). I'm far from an audiophile. All I know is that my iPod(s) is intuitive, sleek, easy-to-use, and gets the job done for me when I work out and/or mow the lawn etc. I think it's a great product.

[MJMcBride]

A multiBillion dollar entertainment conglomerate needs to be given a break for trying? Are you kidding me?

I never said that at all. AV said Disney isn't even trying. All I said was that that was not fair. And what is exactly wrong with "trying"? Sometimes things might seem good on paper but don't work out.

[dbm20th]

Plus, I still say Disney has added a lot of great interesting attractions over the recent past. I know we've fought this fight before Soarin and Turtle Talk are innovative and great.

Not this again. Do I need to find my list of great things WDI has produced in the last 10 years???? It always seems to come back to this. The facts are that some are happy with the new stuff and some are not. As you said before, this will always be the case. For everyone who loves E:E or RnR or whatever, there will be some purist who finds something to complain about. It is just the way it is. (And for every purist, there are people like me who think Dumbo is the most ridiculous carnival rip-off waste of time in the park.)

[Another Voice]

The facts are that some are happy with the new stuff and some are not.
The only fact that really matters is which rides will the public pay for and which ones they are won't.

Based on all the recent evidence, the public really isn't all that interested in the latest offerings.

The opening of 'Indiana Jones' - the last true Disney-level attraction - drove Disneyland's attendance to record setting levels. But an entirely new park, filled with all the latest attractions struggles to sell 5,000 tickets a day.

What have been the lines at 'Mission: Space' recently?

The ideas behind "Disney Design" are important not because Walt made them, or because we're all wearing rose colored glasses. They're important becasue they work. Ignoring the rules leads to business failure; the last four parks Disney opened - Animal Kingdom, California Adventure, Disney Studios Paris and now Hong Kong Disneyland - have all failed to meet their business plans.

It's not a matter of "like" or "dislike". It's a matter of running a profitable company.

[MJMcBride]

The ideas behind "Disney Design" are important not because Walt made them, or because we're all wearing rose colored glasses. They're important becasue they work. Ignoring the rules leads to business failure; the last four parks Disney opened - Animal Kingdom, California Adventure, Disney Studios Paris and now Hong Kong Disneyland - have all failed to meet their business plans.

It's not a matter of "like" or "dislike". It's a matter of running a profitable company.

I think you only wear rose colored glasses when you look in the rearview mirror. Having said that, you are right (how's that for a left turn). In the end, the only thing that matter is what people like.

They still love Tower of Terror and Splash Mountain. Mission Space not so much (although in fairness the bad press on this ride may have something to do with that). I think Soarin' may have staying power. I think its possible that Expedition Everest might (which would help DAK in general).

[Another Voice]

They still love Tower of Terror and Splash Mountain.
'Splash Mountain' yes (it's older than 'Indiana Jones' by a good number of years) - but 'Tower of Terror' at Califorina Adventure is a complete walk-on. There wasn't even a noticeable bump in paid attendance when it first opened.

'Soaring' lacks the extra effort required a truely long lasting ride no matter how many times they changed the film. 'Everest' will be a walk-on by next summer and become the 'Body Wars' of Animal Kingdom (a thrill ride of last resort 'cause everyone's bored).

[ChrisFL]

'Everest' will be a walk-on by next summer and become the 'Body Wars' of Animal Kingdom (a thrill ride of last resort 'cause everyone's bored).

The same could have been said of Test Track when it opened, but everytime I go to Epcot, it has at least a 30-60 minute wait. I think the same will happen for Everest.

Comparing a steel coaster that people tend to love, to a flight simulator technology so popular that they stopped being built 10 years ago is kind of a stretch

[MJMcBride]

'Everest' will be a walk-on by next summer and become the 'Body Wars' of Animal Kingdom (a thrill ride of last resort 'cause everyone's bored).

That is blantantly unfair. I haven't been on it and could argue that one. The Tower is still big at WDW. I thought Califonia Adventure as awhole is a walk on.

[YoHo]

Lets put it another way,

When they put the Electric light parade in California adventure, people actually started going over to see it, because they loved the parade soooo much.

If they built pirates in DCA, people would go to DCA to ride it, because Pirates is one of the best rides.

ToT had about a month of long lines and then nothing. Ergo, Tower is not as good.

[MJMcBride]

Then why does the ToT at WDW continue to draw?

Maybe its just the whacky people who live in Cali. That would explain it, right?

[ChrisFL]

Then why does the ToT at WDW continue to draw?

Maybe its just the whacky people who live in Cali. That would explain it, right?

MGM is a better park overall than DCA? People buy park hoppers more at WDW than DLR since DCA isn't very good? I don't know but I wouldn't be surprised if those werent big factors

[YoHo]

MGM IS a slightly better park and WDW guests generally go for longer and generally get park hoppers so it's less of an issue in Florida.

[Another Voice]

Then why does the ToT at WDW continue to draw?
Because a ride that's "just good enough" to draw people already in the park is a different beast than a ride that can draw people to the park in the first place.

DCA's 'Tower', like Epcot's 'Mission: Mars' wasn't designed just as an expansion to their parks, they were designed to bring in new guests and to increase overall attendance - just like 'Indiana Jones and the Temple of the Forbidden Eye' did at Disneyland. But both have failed miserably in their jobs.

Getting people out of their homes to a movie theater or a theme park isn’t easy. Disney® has forgotten that fact. They think people naturally go to WDW or D/L like lemmings on the migration. So Disney has gotten use to doing things on the cheap – smaller, less elaborate, dumbed down and unambitious.

The public is smarter than that. They know a roller coaster bought from a catalog isn’t worth the trip no matter how plates of phony Yeti poo you put in the line. People are holding on to their money to be truly amazed and truly dazzled. All Disney wants to offer is a bunch of marketing hype.

[peter11435]

'Everest' will be a walk-on by next summer and become the 'Body Wars' of Animal Kingdom (a thrill ride of last resort 'cause everyone's bored).

Yeah sure. I say we continue this conversation a year from now.

[Another Voice]

No, actually we had the conversation from last year, the one where "people" were saying that 'Mission: Space' was the greatest ride ever built and throngs of happy people couldn't wait to ride it again, and again, and again.

My, what a difference a year makes.

[peter11435]

No, actually we had the conversation from last year, the one where "people" were saying that 'Mission: Space' was the greatest ride ever built and throngs of happy people couldn't wait to ride it again, and again, and again.

My, what a difference a year makes.
You can't compare M:S and Everest.

[barreloflaughs]

You can't compare M:S and Everest.

Yeah, AV...what has gotten into you? Haven't you read the damned FAQ??!!

From the FAQ:

Q: Can I compare M:S with Everest?
A: No, of course not. That would be silly. Now sit down and be quiet!

If you'd like a list of multi-million dollar "E" ticket Walt Disney World attractions that you ARE allowed to compare, please contact me offline.

barrel

[MJMcBride]

I can buy that the Tower of Terror by itself can't save a crappy park (DCA) but I will not agree that it isn't a great ride. Many people consider it one of the best if not the best at WDW. As for comparing Mission Space with Everest, I think we have to see about that. From a personal point of view, I did not blink when they added M:S, but am really looking forward to Everest. And I don't think one single ride would ever get me off my rear and hike it down to WDW.

[Another Voice]

You can't compare M:S and Everest.
Really, what can one say.

As for comparing Mission Space with Everest,…
I’m not comparing “good ride, bad ride”. I’m saying both attractions were built with the exact same business purpose – the drive up overall attendance at their parks. It doesn’t matter if your or I like the ride, the issue is about how well it performs for the business.

‘Mission: Space’ failed at its job. It’s not driving attendance at Epcot. I believe this is because the attraction is poorly designed – a poor design caused by the company choosing to ignore all the lessons it has learned in the last fifty years. Disney is more than capable of creating a “park making” attraction, but the company will not take the risk nor invest the resources to make it happen. The company does not respect its customers – all of you guys – enough to run the business in a matter that’s best for the theme park business.

I see ‘Expedition: Everest’ following the same design philosophy and I expect it to end up with the same results.

[ChrisFL]

I can buy that the Tower of Terror by itself can't save a crappy park (DCA) but I will not agree that it isn't a great ride. Many people consider it one of the best if not the best at WDW. As for comparing Mission Space with Everest, I think we have to see about that. From a personal point of view, I did not blink when they added M:S, but am really looking forward to Everest. And I don't think one single ride would ever get me off my rear and hike it down to WDW.

Yet the DCA version of ToT isn't very good compared to the WDW version.

[peter11435]

Really, what can one say.


I’m not comparing “good ride, bad ride”. I’m saying both attractions were built with the exact same business purpose – the drive up overall attendance at their parks. It doesn’t matter if your or I like the ride, the issue is about how well it performs for the business.

‘Mission: Space’ failed at its job. It’s not driving attendance at Epcot. I believe this is because the attraction is poorly designed – a poor design caused by the company choosing to ignore all the lessons it has learned in the last fifty years. Disney is more than capable of creating a “park making” attraction, but the company will not take the risk nor invest the resources to make it happen. The company does not respect its customers – all of you guys – enough to run the business in a matter that’s best for the theme park business.

I see ‘Expedition: Everest’ following the same design philosophy and I expect it to end up with the same results.
Just because the two were built with the exact same business purpose does not mean they will have the same results.

[MJMcBride]

Yet the DCA version of ToT isn't very good compared to the WDW version.

Why? I haven't been on the DCA version.

[dbm20th]

I don't care about DCA. Never been there, and can't imagine I would ever go. But ToT in MGM is an amazing attraction, no matter what spin you need to have to make a point. It still draws huge lines, and most certainly added a whole new excitment level to MGM when it opened, that has not gone away. By all accounts, Everest is doing the same thing. M:S did not, but then again the ride took a pounding in the press in the years to follow, something Everest has not had.

[ChrisFL]

Why? I haven't been on the DCA version.

It's about 1/2 the budget of the WDW version, there's no theming outside of the hotel at all, no garden area with the creepy vines everywhere, the inside queue is the same.

There is an un-themed hallway before the elevator you get into. The ride is much shorter, there is no "next dimension" where the vehicle moves forward. You see one brief room with a mirror effect before you see the main room with the 4 ghosts then it starts to drop you. Plus the on-ride narration is completely different and IMO doesn't sound like Rod Serling at all (compared to the WDW version)

[YoHo]

Sigh......


When Disney World first opened up, there were no plans to build a Pirates. It was going to have Western River Expedition.

So many guests crowded town hall asking where "That Pirates Ride is?" That Disney Dropped everything and rushed the crappy Florida version of the ride into the park.

THAT my friends is an attraction that get's people off their butts and through the turnstyles.

People in Southern California weren't clogging Town Hall begging for the ToT.

In fact, there were plenty of people out here who didn't know it existed, because they don't give a hoot about Florida when they have The park that Walt built in their back yard.


Tower's a good ride, but it's not a masterpiece of imagineering. The thrill is in the drops at the end. Of course, given the crap that's come after it, I can see how TOT might be considered better then it really is.

[yalegracey]

Why can't anybody say WALT Disney World

[YoHo]

I CAN say Walt Disney World. I just don't.

Mainly I'm just a lazy typist, but also, Disney World in 2006 is not something Walt would ever want his name attached to. Nor would Roy want to attach his name to it.

So consider it a little respect for the Man.

[dbm20th]

Disney World in 2006 is not something Walt would ever want his name attached to. Nor would Roy want to attach his name to it.

So consider it a little respect for the Man.

Then I guess I really love a place that Walt and Roy wouldn't want their names attached to, though I think that's not accurate. I'm good with that. And I am sure I am not alone

[YoHo]

I love WDW too, or at least what's left of Walt's vision.


There are also hundreds of other places in the world that I "love" that wouldn't be satisfactory for Walt.

[Another Voice]

Then I guess I really love a place that Walt and Roy wouldn't want their names attached to...
Walt (and Roy) understood the power of a good brand name. They were more than happy to use "Disney" for that purpose. They grew up in the age of Warner Brothers Movie Studio, of Boeing Aircraft, of Kraft Foods, etc.

At the same time, all indiciations are that Walt didn't want the parks themselves to be personal momuments. That's why he left instruction there were to be no statues of him. Walt Disney World - a name he never used for the Florida Project - was probably going a bit to far for him. He understood the collaborative process that made it possible. Putting his fill name on it was taking too much credit.

That being said, however, I can imagine that the first thing Walt will do after being thawed is the rent a bulldozer and head to Orlando.

[ChrisFL]

Sigh......


When Disney World first opened up, there were no plans to build a Pirates. It was going to have Western River Expedition.

So many guests crowded town hall asking where "That Pirates Ride is?" That Disney Dropped everything and rushed the crappy Florida version of the ride into the park.

THAT my friends is an attraction that get's people off their butts and through the turnstyles.

People in Southern California weren't clogging Town Hall begging for the ToT.

In fact, there were plenty of people out here who didn't know it existed, because they don't give a hoot about Florida when they have The park that Walt built in their back yard.


Tower's a good ride, but it's not a masterpiece of imagineering. The thrill is in the drops at the end. Of course, given the crap that's come after it, I can see how TOT might be considered better then it really is.


so if it isn't a 15 minute ride with 200+ AA figures it's not worthy?

[YoHo]

sigh.

That's hardly the point.

If it's not a ride that captures the imagination and fully emerses you the way pirates does, then it's not the kind of attraction we're talking about.

We've already established that ToT can't draw people on it's own. So, there is no question that it's not as good as Pirates, which can.

[peter11435]

So, there is no question that it's not as good as Pirates, which can.

It can. How can you be so sure of that.

[YoHo]

Did you read my Earlier post, I say it can, because it frickin did.

[ChrisFL]

sigh.

That's hardly the point.

If it's not a ride that captures the imagination and fully emerses you the way pirates does, then it's not the kind of attraction we're talking about.

We've already established that ToT can't draw people on it's own. So, there is no question that it's not as good as Pirates, which can.

IMO the GOOD ToT can draw people on it's own, not the half-*** job done at DCA.

[MJMcBride]

, Disney World in 2006 is not something Walt would ever want his name attached to. Nor would Roy want to attach his name to it.



How the heck could even know that? I think he would so there.

[peter11435]

Did you read my Earlier post, I say it can, because it frickin did.
Yeah, 30 freakin' years ago.

[YoHo]

How the heck could even know that? I think he would so there.


Because I can read, both what Walt has said and wrote along with what others have said and written about him and I can talk with people who worked for him and worked with the people that designed WDW and I can therefore have a good idea about what Walt's vision was for his theme parks (I'm not talking E.P.C.O.T. here) and from all that, it's very clear that in particular since the late 80s, the additions to Disney's themeparks have largely not been in keeping with how Walt would have wanted them added to.

[YoHo]

Yeah, 30 freakin' years ago.


sigh, I'll say this for you dude, you may constantly miss the point in a conversation, but at least you miss it in a consistant fashion.

Who the heck cares that it was 30 years ago (before you were born). That has absolutly nothing to do with frickin anything.

[DVCconvert]

sigh, I'll say this for you dude, you may constantly miss the point in a conversation, but at least you miss it in a consistant fashion.


At least he's not alone! :rotfl2:

and I can therefore have a good idea about what Walt's vision was for his theme parks

We - the ignorant masses - are SO lucky to have you!!!! :wizard:


:lmao:

[peter11435]

Who the heck cares that it was 30 years ago (before you were born). That has absolutly nothing to do with frickin anything.

Actually the fact that it was 30 years ago is very important. Unlike yourself most people in this world do not live in the past. What was popular and brought in guests in the 1960's and 70's is not the same as what does it today.

[YoHo]

Actually the fact that it was 30 years ago is very important. Unlike yourself most people in this world do not live in the past. What was popular and brought in guests in the 1960's and 70's is not the same as what does it today.


Peter, have I ever told you that you're the wind beneath my wings?

I said this:
If it's not a ride that captures the imagination and fully emerses you the way pirates does, then it's not the kind of attraction we're talking about.


ToT is not that type of attraction, Indy is, Splash mountain is (despite it's retarded location.)

Indiana Jones and the Temple of the Forbidden eye had lines running all the way to the Main Street train station when it opened. ToT never had lines like that ever. Pirates generated lines like that too for the rehab. So in fact what was popular 35 years ago IS still super popular today.

But you just keep on imagining that's not true.

[Another Voice]

What was popular and brought in guests in the 1960's and 70's is not the same as what does it today.
Yet the ancient 30 year old ruins of the Magic Kingdom draw twice as many people as the shiny oh-so-hip Animal Kingdom...

Imgaine that. Timeless quality is more important than cheap fads and PowerPoint presentations.

There might be a lesson in there.

[Sarangel]

What was popular and brought in guests in the 1960's and 70's is not the same as what does it today.

So, those lines down to City Hall when they re-opened Pirates with the refurbishement were 30 year old lines? Pirates remains one of the most popular rides in Disneyland - all you have to do is look up the hourly capacity and multiply that out to the number of riders per day.

The point here is that it is possible to design rides that remain popular after the initial novelty wears off. Most of the current Disney rides do not have that quality (I'm suspending judgement on E:E, because I haven't ridden it yet).

[MJMcBride]

So, those lines down to City Hall when they re-opened Pirates with the refurbishement were 30 year old lines? Pirates remains one of the most popular rides in Disneyland - all you have to do is look up the hourly capacity and multiply that out to the number of riders per day.

The point here is that it is possible to design rides that remain popular after the initial novelty wears off. Most of the current Disney rides do not have that quality (I'm suspending judgement on E:E, because I haven't ridden it yet).

First let me say, I do not necessarily agree with Peter11435 on this point. But this is not fair either. Pirates packed them in because it was a relaunch/redo. I have been on it many times where you can walk right in. Many wanted to see the "new" parts of the ride. Having said Pirates and HM maybe my two favorite rides in all of WDW.

I also think some rides at WDW that have come down the pike have withstood the test of time. Kilimanjaroo still draws crowds. Tower of Terror does at MGM (I don't know whats going on at DCA as I've never been). I'll wager Soarin' will. Maybe Everest too. So might Mickey's Phillaramagic. Fantasmic will be popular for many years to come.

I will continue to believe that, yes, recently Disney has not always hit the mark and have missed the mark more than they used to. But they still do occassionally- at least- put out a great, imaginative attraction.

[Another Voice]

Again - how much of a ride's popularity is because of the show itself, and how much is because "we're already here, let's go on this one". The concept of good enough has a couple of different levels.

Dozens and dozens of better animal parks have rides similar to Kilimanjaroo. There's not a single element in the entire show that truly's unique, nothing that gets people to say "I've never seen that before" or "that's impossible - how did they do that". It lacks the "magic" of real Disney attraction: Kilimanjaroo appears exactly what it is, a bus ride around some cages. But the public expects Disney to present them "dreams made real": haunted houses and rocket trips and flying with a beloved character from childhood. All Kilimanjaroo offers is a really bad episode of the Kraft Brothers ("Com'on Martin - let's go save Li'l Red!!")

'Soarin' - gee, 'Star Tours' was popular for a long time. But it's a walk on now. All rides that are basically movies grow old very fast. Already the ride's popularity is slipping at California Adventure - and it's not like there's a lot of competion in the park either. 'Soaring' lacks a couple elements that would have made it better attraction. There should have been a real show there. At the moment it's a movie theater with a gimmick. They don't even bother to hide the fact that's it's a theater.

But most of all, it lacks the emotional kick in the gut that the best Disney attractions have. It's the "I've always wanted to do this!" antcipation and then delivering on that promise. You feel like you've gone through a haunted house when you exit the Mansion. You mind tells you that it's only an amusement park ride - but the your hair really stand up on end, those special effects are so believable that it's easier to believe in real ghosts...it all just seems so real yet there no way it possibly can be.

Or the 'Indiana Jones' Temple ride. It feels exactly what it would feel like to be in an Indiana Jones movie - the speed, the noise, the confusion, the over-the-top effects ("is that three story high skull really spitting flames at us?"), the phyisical thrashing and the "ohmygod - it's THE BOULDER!" moment that makes everyone scream even after ten years.

To do that takes a lot of skill, a lot of talent, and even more than that in hard work. Disney knows this, they know the was to make a great attration. They just aren't willing to put that effort these days. 'Tower' isn't fully developed enough to be much more than a facny drop ride, 'Soaring' is an IMAX theater with fancy chairs, and if one more movie spits water at me, I'm swearing off 3D films forever.

[YoHo]

GAH, I'm sick and tired of the
"I sometimes can walk write on to Pirates defense." Uttering that phrase should get you banned. Explaining why it's wrongheaded should be in the DIS faq.

The Haunted Mansion and Pirates have the highest hourly capacity of any attractions Disney has EVER made.

The Hourly capacity of Pirates maxes out at 3400 guests per hour with an average around 2700.

Disney attractions average somewhere around 1800. So Pirates can shove a whole lot more people through the ride and that means that you simply won't ever stand in line as long for pirates as you would for a slower moving ride.

So, please don't use the anecdotal evidence without actually knowing how the attractions work.


No specific offense intended to you MJMcbride.You're not the first on this board to fail to think this one through.

[YoHo]

Again - how much of a ride's popularity is because of the show itself, and how much is because "we're already here, let's go on this one". The concept of good enough has a couple of different levels.

Dozens and dozens of better animal parks have rides similar to Kilimanjaroo. There's not a single element in the entire show that truly's unique, nothing that gets people to say "I've never seen that before" or "that's impossible - how did they do that". It lacks the "magic" of real Disney attraction: Kilimanjaroo appears exactly what it is, a bus ride around some cages. But the public expects Disney to present them "dreams made real": haunted houses and rocket trips and flying with a beloved character from childhood. All Kilimanjaroo offers is a really bad episode of the Kraft Brothers ("Com'on Martin - let's go save Li'l Red!!")

'Soarin' - gee, 'Star Tours' was popular for a long time. But it's a walk on now. All rides that are basically movies grow old very fast. Already the ride's popularity is slipping at California Adventure - and it's not like there's a lot of competion in the park either. 'Soaring' lacks a couple elements that would have made it better attraction. There should have been a real show there. At the moment it's a movie theater with a gimmick. They don't even bother to hide the fact that's it's a theater.

But most of all, it lacks the emotional kick in the gut that the best Disney attractions have. It's the "I've always wanted to do this!" antcipation and then delivering on that promise. You feel like you've gone through a haunted house when you exit the Mansion. You mind tells you that it's only an amusement park ride - but the your hair really stand up on end, those special effects are so believable that it's easier to believe in real ghosts...it all just seems so real yet there no way it possibly can be.

Or the 'Indiana Jones' Temple ride. It feels exactly what it would feel like to be in an Indiana Jones movie - the speed, the noise, the confusion, the over-the-top effects ("is that three story high skull really spitting flames at us?"), the phyisical thrashing and the "ohmygod - it's THE BOULDER!" moment that makes everyone scream even after ten years.

To do that takes a lot of skill, a lot of talent, and even more than that in hard work. Disney knows this, they know the was to make a great attration. They just aren't willing to put that effort these days. 'Tower' isn't fully developed enough to be much more than a facny drop ride, 'Soaring' is an IMAX theater with fancy chairs, and if one more movie spits water at me, I'm swearing off 3D films forever.


You'll still ride Heimlich's choo choo train though right.

[ChrisFL]

'Tower' isn't fully developed enough to be much more than a facny drop ride,

Sorry, I still really really disagree with that one...what more does it need? It has an entire hotel, a very creepy courtyard with incredible theming to make it look like it hasn't been touched for 70 years, interior lobby with props from the TV shows and authentic items from centuries past. It has a full story which is presented by Rod Serling, who BTW is actually DEAD but they brought him back anyway, a fully themed queue in the boiler room, and a lot of immersion inside the ride.

In fact the only thing that takes away slightly from the entire experience is the view of the park before/during the drop sequence. Then there's the ending, once again fully themed and you still feel like you're in the twilight zone.

I cant imagine what more Disney could have done to make the ride better...yes it's a drop ride, the same way that Space Mountain is just a rollercoaster and Pirates is just a lousy flume ride with 1 or 2 drops. :sad2:

[barreloflaughs]

Pirates packed them in because it was a relaunch/redo.

That might be a bit of an overstatement. Imagine a day 40 years hence when Disney reopens another attraction after a short rehab...oh..let's say, 'Sounds Dangerous' or 'Stich's Great Escape!'. <shudder> How long will the lines be for those?

Certainly Pirates has seen longer lines as a result of the extreme Disney marketing effort and no doubt folks wanted to experience the attraction after it's round of tender loving care and scene changes. But long before it was a Johnny Depp tie-in Pirates was a wonderful, imaginative, spell-binding adventure. The good news is that it still is! Just hoping that the future holds more awe-inspiring attractions....

barrel

[barreloflaughs]

It has a full story which is presented by Rod Serling, who BTW is actually DEAD but they brought him back anyway...

Well jeez....if the Imagineers can raise folks the dead why did they settle for Rod Serling? I mean...I like Rod quite a lot and 'The Twilight Zone' was first rate storytelling but...uh.....you' d think they'd have started with Walt, no?

barrel

[Keyser]

Dozens and dozens of better animal parks have rides similar to Kilimanjaroo. There's not a single element in the entire show that truly's unique, nothing that gets people to say "I've never seen that before" or "that's impossible - how did they do that". It lacks the "magic" of real Disney attraction: Kilimanjaroo appears exactly what it is, a bus ride around some cages. But the public expects Disney to present them "dreams made real": haunted houses and rocket trips and flying with a beloved character from childhood. All Kilimanjaroo offers is a really bad episode of the Kraft Brothers ("Com'on Martin - let's go save Li'l Red!!")

Boy, I'd still have to disagree here. I think Kilimanjaro is very well done, and my wife and I did say "I've never seen that before" and "how did they do that" - it feels much more like you're riding among the animals rather than by cages, and I felt like I'd been in Africa. It's far better than any zoo or drive-through animal exhibit I've seen. (I admit I haven't been to the Wild Animal Park in San Diego, which I have heard might be as good). OK, a real safari would be better, I'm sure, but I would still argue that most Disney visitors view a real safari vacation at a level similar to a lot of the "impossible" things you cite.

If you're going to criticize poorly done things in Animal Kingdom, there are much easier pickings, starting with all the other animal exhibits, which feel just like any good zoo. I would argue, though, that the Dinosaur ride at AK was also well-done, and from what I saw of EE in Rohde's presentation, it seemed well done (though I understand you and others don't think so).


You feel like you've gone through a haunted house when you exit the Mansion. You mind tells you that it's only an amusement park ride - but the your hair really stand up on end, those special effects are so believable that it's easier to believe in real ghosts...it all just seems so real yet there no way it possibly can be.

Again, I'd totally disagree - I found HM to be great until the point where you actually start riding through scenes in the buggies. While some of the ghost effects were OK, most of them reminded me of cheap effects I'd find at a traveling carnival - far from "so believable that it's easier to believe in real ghosts". Tower of terror was far more immersive and realistic. I got off of that ride with a feeling like I'd just been to a haunted hotel (shortly broken thereafter by walking out through a gift shop, but that's another issue).

I'm completely with you on "Soarin" - it's a very fun ride, and it's nice to have big rides that a whole family can enjoy, but there's no show - certainly not what should be a Disney standard.

Really, though, there are plenty of rides I find held up as "great" examples that I find rather poor (Pirates would be included here). I think a lot of this is that I find many animatronics (especially humans) to be so unrealistic that I find it impossible to find such rides "immersive" - they remind me of the band that plays at Chuck E. Cheese or something. A good story/show can overcome some of these problems, but I often don't even find stories on those rides particularly compelling, either. I think technology has a lot to do with it - with improvements in robotics and computer-generated effects, it can take more to get one to suspend disbelief.

[dbm20th]

Really, though, there are plenty of rides I find held up as "great" examples that I find rather poor (Pirates would be included here). I think a lot of this is that I find many animatronics (especially humans) to be so unrealistic that I find it impossible to find such rides "immersive" - they remind me of the band that plays at Chuck E. Cheese or something.

Cry Havoc! And let slip the dog's of war. Keyser, you really stuck your head in the dragons mouth with this one... pirate:

[raidermatt]

Really, though, there are plenty of rides I find held up as "great" examples that I find rather poor (Pirates would be included here).

Nobody can be "wrong" of course when it comes to liking or disliking a ride. But it is important to set aside our personal preferences and look at the big picture when evaluating a rides's overall significance and popularity.

Pirates and HM are nearly 40 years old. While they are sometimes walk-ons, they are frequently not. And, as has been pointed out, their load speed has to be factored into any evaluation of their current popularity.

Whether you or I like them or not is irrelevant. They are two of the most popular attractions ever created, and they remain significant draws today. If you want to understand how great attractions are created, you have to start with these.

[dbm20th]

Dozens and dozens of better animal parks have rides similar to Kilimanjaroo..

Dozens and dozens? Really?? That's just plain silly

You feel like you've gone through a haunted house when you exit the Mansion. You mind tells you that it's only an amusement park ride - but the your hair really stand up on end, those special effects are so believable that it's easier to believe in real ghosts...it all just seems so real yet there no way it possibly can be.

Exactly which part? The heads popping up behind the tombstones? The door knockers moving? Or is it the incredbily inventive Pepper's Ghost effect, the goes back nearly 100 years before HM? None of these campy effects ever made me believe in real ghosts. Let's pull the exaggeration level down just a bit...

'Tower' isn't fully developed enough to be much more than a facny drop ride

That may be true of the Cali version, but if you are referring to MGM, that's just hogwash.

[YoHo]

Just to dispell a little misinformation in this thread. I regularly get brochures for adventure vacations. South and Central America, Asia, Africa, Australia, the South Seas. These vacation packages are at worst as expensive as a WDW vacation not more. So, if Joe Six-pack really thinks that the Safari ride is the most cost effective way to get the Safari experience, then he probably ought to turn the vacation planning video off and experience the rest of the world.

I mean, I love Disney, but Kilimanjaro Safari is not anything like something out of my reach and beyond my dreams.


Now, let the foolish mocking of Disney's greatest attractions continue. I hate to intrupt a good head of steam.

[yalegracey]

While some of the ghost effects were OK, most of them reminded me of cheap effects I'd find at a traveling carnival
Such as?

[raidermatt]

Dozens and dozens? Really?? That's just plain silly

Not as silly as quibbling over how large the number is. The point holds regardless of the exact number.

Exactly which part? The heads popping up behind the tombstones? The door knockers moving? Or is it the incredbily inventive Pepper's Ghost effect, the goes back nearly 100 years before HM? None of these campy effects ever made me believe in real ghosts. Let's pull the exaggeration level down just a bit...


So people just love campy effects? So much so that by using some you can create one of the most popular attractions ever built?

Obviously there's more going on here than just what you see as some campy effects. AV offered an explanation for the ride's nearly unprecedented popularity and longevity. Perhaps you have an alternative explanation?

[Another Voice]

Or is it the incredbily inventive Pepper's Ghost effect, the goes back nearly 100 years before HM?
Fireworks go back thousands of years. You must hate Wishes. Theatrical movies are more than a hundred years old – you should really despise Dead’s Man Chest, that thing will NEVER be popular. How could anyone watch such an ancient artform like “movies”.

Only the talentless blame the tools they have to work with, only hacks think “new” is the same as “good”.

It doesn’t matter how old the technology is, it’s how it’s used. I’ll gladly compare the “fuddy-duddy” effects from the Mansion against anyother. Besides, doesn’t ‘Tower of Terror’ use the old, rotten Pepper’s Ghost trick too?

Oh – aren’t rollercoasters more than a hundred years old too. I guess ‘Everest’ isn’t good either.

OK, a real safari would be better, I'm sure, but I would still argue that most Disney visitors view a real safari vacation at a level similar to a lot of the "impossible" things you cite.
Again – the real Disney makes attractions from adventures that are impossible in the real world. What you described is merely impractical for a lot of people. That’s a different, and lower, level of wish fulfillment. That’s what Vegas is for – gee, can’t get away to Europe, come the ‘Paris’ casino! The only emotional thrill you get out of it is that for a few moments you can forget you’re too poor to go to the real Paris.

It’s not the same as “I’ve always wanted to fly off to Neverland”.

I think a lot of this is that I find many animatronics (especially humans) to be so unrealistic…
The biggest tragedy of the Eisner era is the way the parks were allowed to rot. Outdate electronics is not the fault of the show; it’s the fault of the people putting on the show. No one is complaining that the new figures of Jack Sparrow came from Chuck E. Cheese.


Again – there is a reason why some attractions are still hugely popular after fifty years, while others don’t even last five. It has nothing to do with what’s “popular” or what’s “kEwL” or what “cutting edge” technology is used. It’s good old fashioned storytelling.

[dbm20th]

Not as silly as quibbling over how large the number is. The point holds regardless of the exact number.

No one is quiblbling. I am simply questioning the accuracy of what he is basing this opinion on. He acts as though KS is something we can see at the local town fair. That's not true.

So people just love campy effects? So much so that by using some you can create one of the most popular attractions ever built?

Again, my point is lost on you, and I apologize for that. AV is injecting his opinion, his subjective and personal view of HM as why it is vastly superior to newer rides, like ToT. I don't agree. I don't get any of the feeling he says here when I am on HM, a ride I truly love. It is great fun. It's got great music and I always ride it. But it does NOT make me feel like I just left a haunted mansion. In fact, it makes me feel like someone is making fun of haunted mansions.

He also tries to call ToT a glorified drop ride and KS a run-of-the mill zoo attraction. He backs this opinion by referencing HM, a ride that also used old techniques as well. This is NOT a bash on HM. It is NOT an attempt to make these newer rides better than HM. It is simply poining out that the logic doesn't follow.

Obviously there's more going on here than just what you see as some campy effects.

And there is a lot more going on in ToT then FreeFall. Just like HM, it used older techniques, like the drop, and injected terrific themeing and story as well as a brand new ride mechanism. Brilliant, no matter what the purists want to believe.

[YoHo]

AV is not giving an opinion when he says that Pirates and HM are more popular then Tower (at either place).

That's a fact, HM and Pirates are the 2 most popular attractions in both WDW and DL. That isn't up for debate. Why is that?

[dbm20th]

Fireworks go back thousands of years. You must hate Wishes. Theatrical movies are more than a hundred years old – you should really despise Dead’s Man Chest, that thing will NEVER be popular. How could anyone watch such an ancient artform like “movies”.

Only the talentless blame the tools they have to work with, only hacks think “new” is the same as “good”.

It doesn’t matter how old the technology is, it’s how it’s used. I’ll gladly compare the “fuddy-duddy” effects from the Mansion against anyother. Besides, doesn’t ‘Tower of Terror’ use the old, rotten Pepper’s Ghost trick too?

Oh – aren’t rollercoasters more than a hundred years old too. I guess ‘Everest’ isn’t good either.

We are in perfect agreement! That is my point. These things ARE better than the average. Just like HM was. You don't think so, well that's your opinion. But I have NEVER been on a drop ride like ToT. What I was doing was using the same spinning technique on HM that you use on ToT or whatever. Perhaps I did not make that clear. My bad!

[Keyser]

Cry Havoc! And let slip the dog's of war. Keyser, you really stuck your head in the dragons mouth with this one...

I see that now...

Nobody can be "wrong" of course when it comes to liking or disliking a ride. But it is important to set aside our personal preferences and look at the big picture when evaluating a rides's overall significance and popularity.

Pirates and HM are nearly 40 years old. While they are sometimes walk-ons, they are frequently not. And, as has been pointed out, their load speed has to be factored into any evaluation of their current popularity.

Whether you or I like them or not is irrelevant. They are two of the most popular attractions ever created, and they remain significant draws today. If you want to understand how great attractions are created, you have to start with these.

I don't disagree. I'm not saying that these rides that are popular should be done away with or anything, and I don't mean to "mock" them.

Let me give an analogy between theme park rides and roller coasters (I should know better - analogies always stretch to the point of breaking...). Coney Island’s Cyclone has to be considered one of the greatest roller coasters ever. It has incredible longevity and still draws a crowd. Lots of people still love it and ride it. If you’re going to build a roller coaster, it’s a good idea to understand why the Cyclone has been so successful. Not everyone likes it, though. As technology has progressed, the expectations for roller coasters have increased a lot, and as a result some view the Cyclone as being rather poor – many find it dated and rough. At the same time, you’d be very hard pressed to pick one of the new roller coasters that will still be popular 80 years from now. On each of them you can probably pick out a few things that make it not as good as the Cyclone. That doesn’t mean that these newer roller coasters weren’t well designed, or shouldn’t have been built. In fact, it doesn’t mean that some of them aren’t arguably better roller coasters than the Cyclone.


While some of the ghost effects were OK, most of them reminded me of cheap effects I'd find at a traveling carnival

Such as?

It’s been a few years now (I didn’t ride HM, or Pirates, last time I went to WDW), but the part that sticks out the most was a graveyard scene – it was more cartoonish than anything else. Some of the ghost effects I thought were also pretty weak (again, no better than a mirror effect I’d see at a carnival), while some of the other ghost effects were good. In fact, I thought the intro to the ride was excellent, but all sense of immersion into the haunted environment was broken by the “campy” effects. I really don’t mean to criticize the ride itself – it’s fine, and I’m glad so many people like it. But, it’s odd to me to consider that ride a paragon of immersion while denigrating Tower of Terror, which I personally found to have done a much better job in giving a feeling of being in a haunted building.

[mjstaceyuofm]

At least no one is in this thread defending Primeval Whirl... :rotfl2: ;)

It has nothing to do with what’s “popular” or what’s “kEwL” or what “cutting edge” technology is used. It’s good old fashioned storytelling. I would agree with you on the storytelling. I like KS, I think it's a decent ride and you can see animals you don't see everyday (blah blah) but the "story" is weak. After riding through the "savannah" and seeing some pretty neat animals (when they're not sleeping) the ride turns over to that hoaky poaching storyline. I totally lose interest. It feels more like a contrived fill-in or obligatory story-line after having people see the "kEwL" (lack of) animal enclosures.

I'll tell you where I'm coming from and my interpretation of AV's posts: it seems that the rides that WDI develops of late seem to be more about a "ride technology" than a story. It's all about showcasing some new technology and then they fill in a story around it. They've done a better job on some rides than others. Some have better stories and elements surrounding them like ToT. I really like this ride - I think the "story" is good. But it still feels like the story was developed around the ride technology and not vice-versa.... The same could be said for RnR, E:E (still waiting to ride and judge this one), KS, Soarin', M:S, etc. I really like all those rides (still waiting to judge E:E) but I see a big difference between those and the likes of Pirates, Splash, JC, Spaceship Earth, HM, etc. First and foremost on those was the "story". Second to the development of a good story told by great sets, immersion, etc., on those rides was "how do we get the guests into/through the story...." At least that's how they appear to me.

Again - that's only my opinion. :)

[ChrisFL]

At least no one is in this thread defending Primeval Whirl... :rotfl2: ;)

I would agree with you on the storytelling. I like KS, I think it's a decent ride and you can see animals you don't see everyday (blah blah) but the "story" is weak. After riding through the "savannah" and seeing some pretty neat animals (when they're not sleeping) the ride turns over to that hoaky poaching storyline. I totally lose interest. It feels more like a contrived fill-in or obligatory story-line after having people see the "kEwL" (lack of) animal enclosures.

I'll tell you where I'm coming from and my interpretation of AV's posts: it seems that the rides that WDI develops of late seem to be more about a "ride technology" than a story. It's all about showcasing some new technology and then they fill in a story around it. They've done a better job on some rides than others. Some have better stories and elements surrounding them like ToT. I really like this ride - I think the "story" is good. But it still feels like the story was developed around the ride technology and not vice-versa.... The same could be said for RnR, E:E (still waiting to ride and judge this one), KS, Soarin', M:S, etc. I really like all those rides (still waiting to judge E:E) but I see a big difference between those and the likes of Pirates, Splash, JC, Spaceship Earth, HM, etc. First and foremost on those was the "story". Second to the development of a good story told by great sets, immersion, etc., on those rides was "how do we get the guests into/through the story...." At least that's how they appear to me.

Again - that's only my opinion. :)


I see what you're saying and I dont disagree with you, however another viewpoint could be that we don't always get the reason why we're as guests entering rides, like splash mountain, IIRC Brer rabbit never talks to us about why we're there, we're just put on a boat and get pushed through the story.

The other rides mentioned, we're given the story, like RnRC, we know exactly why we're there and what we're supposed to do...drive a caddy really fast through L.A.

[Keyser]

Quoting and snipping a bit out of order:
It doesn’t matter how old the technology is, it’s how it’s used.

The biggest tragedy of the Eisner era is the way the parks were allowed to rot. Outdate electronics is not the fault of the show; it’s the fault of the people putting on the show. No one is complaining that the new figures of Jack Sparrow came from Chuck E. Cheese.

OK, I agree for the most part. But, I think you'd agree that the technology has to be sufficient to achieve the desired effect, and "sufficient" can also change over time (one type of the "rot" you mention). A good analogy might be movies. The effects in 1950s Sci-Fi movies were evidently pretty effective at the time. Nowadays, a much higher level is called for. Even if the story in one of those old movies is great, the poor effects in an old movie can take away from someone enjoying it today. Some people are able to look past that and see the story, but it's tougher. Many of the poor animatronics take away from attractions for me, and the "campy" effects in HM also do so for me. I'm glad to hear that the Pirates updates are using better animatronics - that should help.

That's very different from saying that just using cool new effects is enough to overcome a bad story (beyond short term), and I haven't heard anyone argue as such.

I think the point where we disagree is in whether there's a good story conveyed in some of the more recent rides.

[YoHo]

Quoting and snipping a bit out of order:

OK, I agree for the most part. But, I think you'd agree that the technology has to be sufficient to achieve the desired effect, and "sufficient" can also change over time (one type of the "rot" you mention). A good analogy might be movies. The effects in 1950s Sci-Fi movies were evidently pretty effective at the time. Nowadays, a much higher level is called for. Even if the story in one of those old movies is great, the poor effects in an old movie can take away from someone enjoying it today. Some people are able to look past that and see the story, but it's tougher. Many of the poor animatronics take away from attractions for me, and the "campy" effects in HM also do so for me. I'm glad to hear that the Pirates updates are using better animatronics - that should help.

That's very different from saying that just using cool new effects is enough to overcome a bad story (beyond short term), and I haven't heard anyone argue as such.

I think the point where we disagree is in whether there's a good story conveyed in some of the more recent rides.

Star Wars (and the rest of the initial trilogy), even with it's relativly primative Special FX has yet to be topped in terms of popularity and immersivness, because of how great the story was. In fact, the prequels take the opposite route and fail utterly.

As for current attractions.
As was said many pages ago, there is a distinct and important difference between Plot and Story. RnRC has a plot (A weak one) there is no story.

There are tons of books that detail how Disney went about making attractions like Pirates and those books stand in sharp contrast to the modern Imagineering method as was pointed out a couple posts ago.

Even Splash Mountain was a flume ride first.

Indy was the last ride where they took a story and built a mechanism for it.

I suppose I should say CTX/Dinosaur as well, but that ride is such a pile of bantha poodoo compared to Indy that I have troble equating the 2.

[Another Voice]

But it still feels like the story was developed around the ride technology and not vice-versa....
That's exactly it!!!!!!

Look at 'Space Mountain'. It's a ride that remains immensely popular despite of the fact that it’s really a very tame roller coaster locked inside a giant building? ‘Space’ works because you’re never really told it’s a roller coaster. The attraction itself is a “rocket journey through space”. It just happens to use a roller coaster as the why to express that.

And yes, doesn’t ‘Rock’n Rollercoaster’ do the same thing? Not really. There’s no attempt to hide the fact that it’s a roller coaster (look at the name). The “car” itself is nothing like a real car, but it’s clearly nothing more than a rollercoaster train made up to look like a car. Inside the ride itself it nothing but a bunch of effects stapled to the side of the tracks – again, it’s not really hiding the fact that it’s a roller coaster.

So what’s the difference between a neon palm tree and a bunch of sparkly lights – it’s all in the audience. It’s the same reason people like movies, it’s “suspension of disbelief”. I think really like to believe in the fantasy. The easier you make it for them, the more they’re going to enjoy it.

Getting an audience to that state is hard, and it’s easy to break That’s why all the real Disney designers were such sticklers for the details. You don’t want anything to nudge the guest in the side to and bring them back “to the real world”. What you draw attention away from is as important as you focus attention on.

To me that’s the problem with ‘Tower’. Walking up to the building you see a falling elevator. You get into the line and see that a hotel’s been closed because its elevator has fallen. Then you step inside a preshow and watch a movie about an elevator that falls. Then you’re invited to ride in an elevator, but strap in because the elevators going to fall. Then you actual get on the elevator – and the elevator falls. Yes, all the surrounding bits help add a great atmosphere to the place, but constant falling doesn’t add to a story so much as it reminds you of the ride’s mechanism – a drop ride.

I think most people really enjoy diving into “make-believe” and are more than happy to work with a story, they just don’t to fight against it. All too often in Disney’s newer rides the mechanics instead of the story show through – leaving nothing for the guests to believe in.

[Keyser]

Star Wars (and the rest of the initial trilogy), even with it's relativly primative Special FX has yet to be topped in terms of popularity and immersivness, because of how great the story was.
Bringing up Star Wars is a low blow - I can't argue with the greatest movie ever. :) I will point out that in the "Special Edition", though, Lucas did feel a need to update the effects (in addition to a bunch of other junk :furious: ).

In fact, the prequels take the opposite route and fail utterly.
I'd disagree a bit about the prequels (episode II had some really bad effects, and episode I some particularly bad acting) - I think the story was decent, but that's getting onto a tangent.
I certainly wouldn't argue that good effects overcome bad story, at least in the longer term (though movies like Independence Day showed they can help movies in the short term). I think I even said so.


As for current attractions.
As was said many pages ago, there is a distinct and important difference between Plot and Story. RnRC has a plot (A weak one) there is no story.

I agree. There are many, many recent rides that I feel are weak in some ways. But, there are others that I feel _do_ have a story-driven approach - maybe not perfectly accomplished, but using the right approach. Some that I'd put in here are Tower of Terror, Dinosaur, and Mission:Space. And, not to beat a dead horse, but everything from Rohde's talk told me that E:E was very story driven, within the constraints that they needed a high capacity thrill ride.

You can argue that even having that constraint in the first place is a problem, but that's not a particularly limiting constraint, and I think it's a bit unreasonable to expect any group to operate without such constraints, at least within an existing park.


Even Splash Mountain was a flume ride first.

Indy was the last ride where they took a story and built a mechanism for it.

I suppose I should say CTX/Dinosaur as well, but that ride is such a pile of bantha poodoo compared to Indy that I have troble equating the 2.
Wouldn't Mission:Space fit here, also? This seems like a perfect example - let people experience what a trip to Mars could be like, with the ride mechanism put in place to help tell the story in the most immersive way possible, not the other way around.

[Another Voice]

but everything from Rohde's talk told me that E:E was very story driven,
A shiny case of where all the people at WDI who knew things have been fired, leaving all the people that don’t.

We’ve all had to sit through movies where a lot of stuff happens, but we aren’t really interested and we certainly don’t really care. And we’ve all sat through movies where we’ve had a great time and where what’s actually happening up on the screen doesn’t make any sense – but we love it anyway.

A story is really about how an audience’s emotions change over the course of the show. You go to see a thriller, you walk in apprehensive, you get the daylights scared out of you, you feel the tension as people fight back, you’re relived when the “good guys” defeat the monster.

A plot is a storytelling device, a way of using characters, words and actions to give those emotions to an audience. The plot is “evil CEO of a theme park uses a cheap chemical as a way to cut French Fry expenses which causes a genetic mutation in some mice that happen it eat and then they go on a night-long feeding frenzy during a Pin Trading event”.

The ‘Haunted Mansion’ has a story, but no plot. While there’s no “this person did that to the other guy” – you start off the ride in a very dark and forbidden place. The ghosts are angry, the trap you inside a room and taunt. As you move through the house you see more; doors move, books float around. After a visit to the séance, the ghosts become more comfortable – they let you see them at their party. Things get even friendlier as the party moves into the graveyard. Now they’re signing and dancing. Finally, they jump right in a sit right down beside you and invite you back. You start the ride scared of ghosts and you end the ride being friendly with them.

‘Expedition: Everest’ has a plot, but no story. You wait in line and see things that make you afraid of the Yeti. You get on the train, the Yeti rips up the tracks. You remain frightened as the train travels backwards and the Yeti rips up more tracks. Finally you move ahead and the Yeti returns to frighten you again. Nothing changes – you’re afraid of the Yeti at the start and you’re afraid of the Yeti at the end. The plot doesn't work because it doesn't change the audience's emotions during or after the show. The plot is a tool, not an end result. That's the problem Rhode and a lot of people left at WDI have. They spend all their time working on elaborate plots, but forget the sreal story.

People like stories more than like plots. People want to feel things – even to feel bad (look at how many popular movies are tearjerkers). All ‘Everest’ offers is a few moments of thrills, but it’s not any deeper than that. But watch the crowd at ‘Mansion’, people go in nervous and afraid and all huddled together. But they come out happy and completely changed. That change is why people enjoy stories.

[raidermatt]

But, there are others that I feel _do_ have a story-driven approach - maybe not perfectly accomplished, but using the right approach. Some that I'd put in here are Tower of Terror, Dinosaur, and Mission:Space.

You can apply AVs points to M:S as well. Its a simulator. Its obvious its a simulator. The simulator us used to simulate a space flight.

Space Mountain and Star Tours use there ride mechs to try to simulate the REAL thing. Star Tours doesn't tell you its a simulator. Of course we all know that, just like we know movies aren't real. But if the filmmakers and ride designers do their job right, we're willing to go along for the ride.

Rides like Test Track and M:S don't even bother to try to immerse you in anything. RnRC makes a bit more of an effort, I guess, but it still doesn't pretend to be anything other than a roller coaster from the moment you read the name and step into the courtyard.

ToT also makes a bit more effort, but still does it through themeing and plot, rather than real story.

Somewhat ironically, I think Dinosaur makes more of an effort than the rest in this area. The problem is its not executed particularly well, and they cheaped out on the effects.

[MJMcBride]

Not as silly as quibbling over how large the number is. The point holds regardless of the exact number.





Wrong because AV, as usual, makes up stuff to support his argument. There are not dozens and dozens. In fact, there might be 3. In terms of zoological parks, only San Diego and the Bronx zoo's are are on par with DAK in terms of immersive exhibits. Most zoos have some immersive exhibits, but also have old, dingy unrealistic exhibits or even cages.

Even the top two zoos in the country (mentioned above), can get a little cramped. San Diego packs a boat load of animals in a relatively small size (I'm talking zoo, not the animal park -which by the way is one of only 2 zoos that I can think of that have comaprable rides to Kilmanjaroo). DAK never really has that "crowded" or "old and dinghy" feel that are found at just about every other zoo.

[dbm20th]

That's exactly it!!!!!!

Look at 'Space Mountain'. It's a ride that remains immensely popular despite of the fact that it’s really a very tame roller coaster locked inside a giant building? ‘Space’ works because you’re never really told it’s a roller coaster. The attraction itself is a “rocket journey through space”. It just happens to use a roller coaster as the why to express that.


Again, I apologize, but I feel this is a huge exaggeration. I don't know about you, but I never once thought that there was any overly successful attempt at hiding that SM is a roller coaster. Certainly not anymore than RnR. The themeing of the vehicles in RnR is far superior. There is no way to see the track, like you do from the line in SM, and the way the story is set is vastly more detailed and effective then SM. I love Space Mountain, for the nostalgia it brings, but when it comes to emmersing us into a story...I just don't think it stacks up with attractions like RnR or ToT. Not even close.

[Another Voice]

There are not dozens and dozens.
Turn on Animal Planet. Better yet, get out of the house and explore. The exhibits at Disney's Animal Kingdom are on the low end of what people are doing today. In fact, they're at the low end of what people were doing a decade ago - take a look at the Monterey Bay Aquirium. And thirty years ago you could drive through Lion Country Safari, get a lot closer to then animals AND learn a lot more – and they didn’t have to have a “Save Little Red” After School Special plotline.

Disney looks amazing as long as that’s the only thing you look at. The rest of the world has caught up.

DAK never really has that "crowded" or "old and dinghy" feel that are found at just about every other zoo.
Illusions are great aren’t they? The “roaming the African veldt” is a lie. In reality what you see is on a tiny part of the animal’s life. For most of the time they are herded backstage in the same dingy concrete boxes of all the places you hate. Disney does a far worse job then dozens and dozens of other wildlife parks and sanctuaries. If Disney really wanted to do something more – they could have. Instead they built cages. Take the train and see.

overly successful attempt at hiding that SM is a roller coaster.
You don’t have to hide it to make the guests ignore it. It’s the same way that movie special work. You KNOW that’s not a real ship sinking, or a giant Medeval castle on the mountain, or a dinosaur chasing down the tourists. You go with it because of the story. And it generally works as long as nothing draws to much attention to the fact that it’s an effect.

‘Space Mountain’ doesn’t draw attention to itself that it’s really just a roller coaster, in exactly the same as a movie effect tries to blend in. So the audience is much more forgiving – and interest – in the atmosphere and overall experience of the attraction.

‘Rock’ says in its very name that it’s a roller coaster and doesn’t do anything to hide that fact. It’s like a film maker putting a subtitle saying “This is a really cool CGI effect, isn’t it!!!” whenever Davy Jones shows up on the screen.

No effect works 100% of the time or for all people. It’s a matter of the audience’s imagination and who much they want to use it.

[Amity 3]

I've always wondered why Rock 'n Rollercoaster was suitable to be in a theme park based on movies.

[BRERALEX]

Anyone hit on that in 30 years, one of the biggest parts of RnRRC ride will be outdated. Aerosmith while being very popular will not appeal to kids 20-30 years from now. While being a pirate or entering a haunted mansion (monster house) will still be appealing.

It was poor planning for short term returns

[dbm20th]

Anyone hit on that in 30 years, one of the biggest parts of RnRRC ride will be outdated. Aerosmith while being very popular will not appeal to kids 20-30 years from now. While being a pirate or entering a haunted mansion (monster house) will still be appealing.

An update in the film and some new music is all it takes to make it happen, though I admit that updates, even great ones, are normally met with fundamentalist nonsense.

[dbm20th]

‘Rock’ says in its very name that it’s a roller coaster and doesn’t do anything to hide that fact. It’s like a film maker putting a subtitle saying “This is a really cool CGI effect, isn’t it!!!” whenever Davy Jones shows up on the screen.

That is the one good point you've made on this. After the title, which perhaps was ill-conceived when thinking on these terms, it far outpaces SM when it comes to themeing and "hiding the coaster" aspect.

You don’t have to hide it to make the guests ignore it. It’s the same way that movie special work. You KNOW that’s not a real ship sinking, or a giant Medeval castle on the mountain, or a dinosaur chasing down the tourists. You go with it because of the story. And it generally works as long as nothing draws to much attention to the fact that it’s an effect.

SM just simply does not do that to the extent with which you are stating. We'll have to agree to disagree on that point.

For most of the time they are herded backstage in the same dingy concrete boxes of all the places you hate. Disney does a far worse job then dozens and dozens of other wildlife parks and sanctuaries.

There are people much more qualified to answer this then I, and I would imagine more qualified then you as well, though I am only guessing. So we'll wait for that...

[dbm20th]

I've always wondered why Rock 'n Rollercoaster was suitable to be in a theme park based on movies.

Are you trying to get the fundamentalists to go completely whacko? What a can of worms you are opening here. Put it away man, before this thread flies off in another direction :thumbsup2

[yalegracey]

Anyone hit on that in 30 years, one of the biggest parts of RnRRC ride will be outdated. Aerosmith while being very popular will not appeal to kids 20-30 years from now. While being a pirate or entering a haunted mansion (monster house) will still be appealing.

It was poor planning for short term returns
Same with Stitch and the new Pirates! Along with WWTBAMPI!

[BRERALEX]

Same with Stitch and the new Pirates! Along with WWTBAMPI!

WWWTBAMPI we are already seeing that problem being taken care of.

Stitch and Pirates can at least be tied into Disney. Aerosmith seems like they just picked a rock group and said "ya they'll do." But I may be ignorant on the history of the ride.

[mjstaceyuofm]

I've always wondered why Rock 'n Rollercoaster was suitable to be in a theme park based on movies.

Are you trying to get the fundamentalists to go completely whacko? What a can of worms you are opening here. Put it away man, before this thread flies off in another direction :thumbsup2Oh c'mon - there's a perfectly logical reason - the intro to the ride IS a movie! ;)

[BRERALEX]

I've always wondered why Rock 'n Rollercoaster was suitable to be in a theme park based on movies.

It should be placed in Animal Kingdom so Aerosmith can be with all the other Dinosaurs. OOOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHH WOOOOOOOOOHOOOOOOO

Why is it in MGM?

Tower I get
Muppets I get
50 Prime time Cafe
Indy
Car Stunt Show
Sci Fi Dine in
WWTBAMPI! I get
Great Movie Ride no brainer
Backlot Studio Tour
Little Mermaid show and B&B show I get.

Why is RnRC there at all? Should I spin off the thread?

[dbm20th]

It should be placed in Animal Kingdom so Aerosmith can be with all the other Dinosaurs. OOOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHH WOOOOOOOOOHOOOOOOO

Why is it in MGM?

Tower I get
Muppets I get
50 Prime time Cafe
Indy
Car Stunt Show
Sci Fi Dine in
WWTBAMPI! I get
Great Movie Ride no brainer
Backlot Studio Tour
Little Mermaid show and B&B show I get.

Why is RnRC there at all? Should I spin off the thread?

Well if you put in tv stuff, like WWTBAMPI and ToT, then you've opened up to things other than films. Aeorsmith certainly falls in the entertainment category and I believe that the ride is thorugh LA. It's a stretch I know, but if you include the tv stuff, then you've already killed the movies-only theme of the area. But theme's often suffer for the good of finding a place for a great ride that doesn't really belong anywhere...kind of like the Matterhorn in Tommorowland! (Yup, look it up!)

[BRERALEX]

Well if you put in tv stuff, like WWTBAMPI and ToT, then you've opened up to things other than films. Aeorsmith certainly falls in the entertainment category and I believe that the ride is thorugh LA. It's a stretch I know, but if you include the tv stuff, then you've already killed the movies-only theme of the area. But theme's often suffer for the good of finding a place for a great ride that doesn't really belong anywhere...kind of like the Matterhorn in Tommorowland! (Yup, look it up!)

How bout we just stick with MGM since we're on RnRRC

Twilight zone was a movie (Yup, look it up!) BTW FYI. They used 'elements' and the dude from the show BUT it was a movie! :happytv:

"Welcome to the Hollywood that never was and always will be."

I can fit TV in there easily.

It's a stretch I know,

Good ride joke

Aeorsmith certainly falls in the entertainment category

So does Vivid Video when do they get a ride?

Anyone have Ei$ners MGM speech from opening day?

[dbm20th]

So does Vivid Video when do they get a ride?

Anyone have Ei$ners MGM speech from opening day?

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. All I am saying is that there is precedent for...tweaking a theme. A precedent that goes all the way back to Walt, and includes things like WWTBAMPI.

And yes, Twilight Zone was a movie...but then again if you want to use that logic, Aerosmith were in films so therefore it fits just fine in the movie theme!

[BRERALEX]

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear.

No not at all. So Vivid Video doesn't get an attraction?

And yes, Twilight Zone was a movie...but then again if you want to use that logic, Aerosmith were in films so therefore it fits just fine in the movie theme!

You can easily fit in Tv shows and Movies into the theme of MGM. You can't fit in Aerosmith, you can't fit in that ride. What movies have they been in? Cause their music has been in movies? How does RnRRC celebrate music in movies? It's out of place at MGM. It's an ugly building with a big car at the entrance to that dead end corner.

I haven't discussed Walt, MK, AK, Epcot, DCA or Disneyland. I'm just talking about MGM.

[MJMcBride]

Turn on Animal Planet. Better yet, get out of the house and explore. The exhibits at Disney's Animal Kingdom are on the low end of what people are doing today. In fact, they're at the low end of what people were doing a decade ago - take a look at the Monterey Bay Aquirium. And thirty years ago you could drive through Lion Country Safari, get a lot closer to then animals AND learn a lot more – and they didn’t have to have a “Save Little Red” After School Special plotline.

Disney looks amazing as long as that’s the only thing you look at. The rest of the world has caught up.


Illusions are great aren’t they? The “roaming the African veldt” is a lie. In reality what you see is on a tiny part of the animal’s life. For most of the time they are herded backstage in the same dingy concrete boxes of all the places you hate. Disney does a far worse job then dozens and dozens of other wildlife parks and sanctuaries. If Disney really wanted to do something more – they could have. Instead they built cages. Take the train and see.




Every animal exhibit in the world is an illusion. I have taken the train. Disney's "backstage" area for animals is far far better than most. How many "employee" only areas have you been to in a zoo. Disney's exhibits are far from the "low end" as you put it. That is (as is usual) an unfair shot.

As far as those drive thru safari's are concerned. They typically do not realistically depict the animal's environent, an important aspect of most zoological exhibits. And if you could get any closer no less a lot closer, it is unsafe for the animals. As for Monterrey Bay, sure its a great aquarium. In fact most experts in the field feel its the best in the world.

As for your determination as to DAK being on the low end of the zoo world. You are just plain wrong. sorry. Having been to numerous zoos, read numerous articles, journals and books on zoos, having been a docent at a zoo for over 15 years, and speaking with docents and employees of over 20 of the leading zoos in this country, I'm pretty sure I have a good idea of whats going on in that particular field.

[raidermatt]

I don't know if its in the low end of zoos, but I do know its not what it could and should be. Either from an innovation pov, or from a scope pov.

[MJMcBride]

I don't know if its in the low end of zoos, but I do know its not what it could and should be. Either from an innovation pov, or from a scope pov.

If you want to be critical of the rides and theming so be it. But the zoological exhibits are top notch. As is the "backstage" and veterinary facilities. Backsatge areas are necessarily cages. The animals are kept in smaller spaces to keep better care of them. Grooming, cleaning, feeding and monitoring is general done "off exhibit".

[dbm20th]

No not at all. So Vivid Video doesn't get an attraction?
Sorry, no. But I don't think that would have anything to do with themeing :thumbsup2

You can easily fit in Tv shows and Movies into the theme of MGM. You can't fit in Aerosmith, you can't fit in that ride. What movies have they been in? Cause their music has been in movies?

But how? If we take it literally, and you eluded to Eisner's speech, there is little that television has to do with the "golden age of hollywood". It's a stretch.

I understand Aerosmith is a monumentally larger stretch, but if you really want to torture yourself, you can go watch Sgt. Pepper's and see Aerosmith starring as the Future Villian Band. (Not to mention cameos including Wayne's World.) Now, they have had quite few songs in films, and it does take place in LA, but this is getting away from my point. I agree with you that it doesn't belong. But it's not like they put Test Track here. The precedent for stretching themeing goes back all the way to Walt.

I haven't discussed Walt, MK, AK, Epcot, DCA or Disneyland. I'm just talking about MGM.

And that is fine. But to get my point, you really have to.

What does the Matterhorn have to do with Tommorowland? (or even Fantasyland for that matter) Or 20k Leagues? Or race cars? Or America Sings?

What does It's a Small World have to do with Fantasyland?

What does Splash Mountain have to do with Frontierland?

What does a Haunted Mansion have to do with Liberty Square?

What part of Test Track is about the future ,making it part of Future World? Or Journey into Imagination? (Yes, even the beloved original)

Do you understand what I mean? I can go on and on, and we can debate each of these until the cows come home, but nobody can argue that these don't somehow seem to fit into their areas a little less snuggly then The Great Movie Ride, Spaceship Earth, or Big Thunder Mountain. These are all great attractions that did not really fit exactly into any themeing that existed at the time. SO we stretch it a bit and we are the better for it. All I am saying is that RnR is a similar stretch.

It doesn't fit, but it really doesn't fit anywhere. But I like it, and therefore I try not to get hung-up on something that really has never been adhered to, even by Walt.

[BRERALEX]

It doesn't fit, but it really doesn't fit anywhere.

You're right

What does It's a Small World have to do with Fantasyland?

It's fantasy that it's a world of laughter. That one was easy.

SO we stretch it a bit and we are the better for it. All I am saying is that RnR is a similar stretch

We'll just disagree.

I've only traveled to Disneyland once and I was too young to remember. I can't speak for Disneyland except to say their castle is inferior. :teeth:

[raidermatt]

But the zoological exhibits are top notch. As is the "backstage" and veterinary facilities.
Great, but its nhatazu. Further, from a guest POV, the exhibits are not extraordinary. I haven't been to a lot of zoos, but enough to know that.

If the backstage areas are that great, wonderful. I don't really know.

But as a theme park, which is what it is, it remains weak on both the number and quality of its attractions.

[MJMcBride]

Great, but its nhatazu. Further, from a guest POV, the exhibits are not extraordinary. I haven't been to a lot of zoos, but enough to know that.

If the backstage areas are that great, wonderful. I don't really know.

But as a theme park, which is what it is, it remains weak on both the number and quality of its attractions.

Why do you feel that the zoological exhibits are ordinary? I understand you feel there needs to be more and better attractions. I agree with that especially your criticism on the muber of them. I hope we get a new land soon like America or Beastly Kingdom.

[SoCalKDG]

Wrong because AV, as usual, makes up stuff to support his argument. There are not dozens and dozens. In fact, there might be 3. In terms of zoological parks, only San Diego and the Bronx zoo's are are on par with DAK in terms of immersive exhibits. Most zoos have some immersive exhibits, but also have old, dingy unrealistic exhibits or even cages.

Even the top two zoos in the country (mentioned above), can get a little cramped. San Diego packs a boat load of animals in a relatively small size (I'm talking zoo, not the animal park -which by the way is one of only 2 zoos that I can think of that have comaprable rides to Kilmanjaroo). DAK never really has that "crowded" or "old and dinghy" feel that are found at just about every other zoo.I'll go out on a limb and say that the San Diego Zoo is top 5 in the U.S. Having said that, I could never spend more than one day at the zoo(I go yearly, occasionally getting a season pass). I could visit AK 2-3 times no problem on our yearly vacation. As just a zoo SDZ would win out, but when you throw in the shows, rides, and yes, theming, AK wins out not problem. Not even close.

I've also been to the San Diego Wild Animal Park multiple times as well, and the safari at AK is much better than the standard safari at the SDWAP(note I said standard, they also offer a photo safari for additional money - alot of additional money to the tune of $90).

[MJMcBride]

Thw Bronx Zoo and the San Diego Zoo are most often counted by people in that field as the top 2 zoos in the country probably by a wide margin. Not just in exhibits but in breeding, conservation, veterinary sciences and educational programs. If you want to include aquariums that throw in Monterray Bay.

Most of the "safari" rides in zoos are monorail rides which I find to be substandard to the Safari ride at DAK.

[airlarry!]

re R'n'R at MGM.

Easy. The park was supposed to be a celebration of the entertainment industry. First, it would show you the Hollywood that never was and always will be...which includes music, television, and yes the movies. All of these are created each and every day in and around L.A.

So, if Airlarry! designed the ride....well first the name would have to go...but second, the ride would be about the making of a record, not some lass **** attempt at getting to a concert on time.

The queue is detailed to the max...but doesn't fit what should have been the real theme of the attraction.

[Kelly Grannell]

Just kill the Imageneering altogether. None of the new rides are innovative anyway. Most of the times their imaginations are tied by budgetary constraints, so what's the point of having that department.

Look at Stitch: a rehash of AE
Look at Soarin': it's an old IMAX technology already available in France for several years with a little tweaks (the only difference is the seating mechanism, the one by IMAX is actually better, the movie is projected in-front and BELOW the audience)
Look at Indy Jones, Dinosaur rides: based on Journey to the Centre of the Earth from Tokyo Disneyland, which was created by a third party private company hired by Tokyo Disneyland, which is only a Franchise of Disney -- not Disney owned park).
look at L,M,A!: It's cool, but uses old generic stunt cars technology from eons ago.

There is nothing new and imaginative coming from the Imagineering department anymore. Too bad.

[MJMcBride]

Just kill the Imageneering altogether. None of the new rides are innovative anyway. Most of the times their imaginations are tied by budgetary constraints, so what's the point of having that department.

Look at Stitch: a rehash of AE
Look at Soarin': it's an old IMAX technology already available in France for several years with a little tweaks (the only difference is the seating mechanism, the one by IMAX is actually better, the movie is projected in-front and BELOW the audience)
Look at Indy Jones, Dinosaur rides: based on Journey to the Centre of the Earth from Tokyo Disneyland, which was created by a third party private company hired by Tokyo Disneyland, which is only a Franchise of Disney -- not Disney owned park).
look at L,M,A!: It's cool, but uses old generic stunt cars technology from eons ago.

There is nothing new and imaginative coming from the Imagineering department anymore. Too bad.

What about Turtle Talk or, dare I say it, Mission Space.

[ChrisFL]

Look at Indy Jones, Dinosaur rides: based on Journey to the Centre of the Earth from Tokyo Disneyland, which was created by a third party private company hired by Tokyo Disneyland, which is only a Franchise of Disney -- not Disney owned park).

Thats not what I've heard...Im pretty sure Journey to the Center of the Earth is the same technology as Test Track and was built long after Indy opened.

[Another Voice]

New or old technology isn't the problem.

It's what you do with it that's been Disney's shortcoming.

'Mission: Space' was cutting edge twenty different ways, and now it's you get free Fast Passes begging you to go on the thing. Yet 'Soaring' uses an old basic Big Format Movie with slightly fancy seats and the lines are out the door.

No one cares about mechanics.

Transport a guest into a fantasy and make them feel it's real using hundred old tricks and they'll beat down the door to give you money.

[Kelly Grannell]

'Mission: Space' was cutting edge twenty different ways, and now it's you get free Fast Passes begging you to go on the thing.

Yet 'Soaring' uses an old basic Big Format Movie with slightly fancy seats and the lines are out the door.


1. M:S uses 30 yeard old technology, plain and simple, outside of that, it's purely cosmetics, nothing needs to be "imagined" there.

2. Soarin' it's popular because it's Disney and it's the only kind in the US. If you've travelled the real world (as opposed to just Disney World), the realistic effect of the IMAX technology used in France is more immersive and realistic than Soarin'.

3. Turtle Talk also based on presets (and they do have lots of presets) and the mouth movements are based on real-time digital motion capture that's been available more than 8 years ago.

The Tiki Room... now that's a true Imagineering feat
It's a Small World another Imagineering feat
Halls of Presidents (started with just Abe Lincoln, CoP, even the Matterhorn are Imagineering feat.

There were no synchronized music vs doll vs wave-driven ride ever built before.

Tiki Room, no smooth and natural moving animatronics before, no animatornics period, actually. Same goes with Abe Lincoln and all the characters of CoP and its rotating building.

There was no tube-steel-based roller coaster before Matterhorn.

Those are the engineering part comes to Imagineering. Now they are just playing dress-up. No innovation anymore.

[MJMcBride]

New or old technology isn't the problem.

It's what you do with it that's been Disney's shortcoming.

'Mission: Space' was cutting edge twenty different ways, and now it's you get free Fast Passes begging you to go on the thing. Yet 'Soaring' uses an old basic Big Format Movie with slightly fancy seats and the lines are out the door.

No one cares about mechanics.

Transport a guest into a fantasy and make them feel it's real using hundred old tricks and they'll beat down the door to give you money.

I agree with that. But doesn't Mission Space transport you to the fantasy of actual space flight. Now I know the ride has been taking major press hits and maybe it would have done that without the press and deaths, but I think the idea was to transport you to the fantasy of actual space flight and may have worked to that end.

I agree Soarin's is good old fashioned imagineering. So is Turtle Talk in my book.

[YoHo]

Mission space dropped it's journey to space theme in exchange for a cheaper to implement astronaut training theme. IT fails.


Soarin works really really well, I wish they had built up a better theme around it.


Kelly, you're bein way to critical. Wasn't the Railroad Imagineering? What about the Mine Train, or the Steam ship. What about Main Street?

Imagineering isn't about new and fantastic technologies, although new technology is a great tool. It's about storytelling using the methods of film and stage.

[Another Voice]

But doesn't Mission Space transport you to the fantasy of actual space flight.
'Mission: Space' is a simulation of a simulation. They tell you what you're about to experience is just training. It's called a "training center". You, as the audience, are left having to pretend you're on a pretend mission.

That's not really anyone's fantasy.

Had 'Mission: Space' actually been about going to Mars it would have been more successful.

But that would have required money to create a show.

[MJMcBride]

'Mission: Space' is a simulation of a simulation. They tell you what you're about to experience is just training. It's called a "training center". You, as the audience, are left having to pretend you're on a pretend mission.

That's not really anyone's fantasy.

Had 'Mission: Space' actually been about going to Mars it would have been more successful.


I don't disagree really. We're really just talking semantics. All I mean is that attempted to create a fantasy, i.e. being an anstronaut, the training, the space center. I agree thats its not really anyone's fantasy. Hence its popularity even before the recent problems. I have always enjoyed Test Track more.

[Kelly Grannell]

Mission space dropped it's journey to space theme in exchange for a cheaper to implement astronaut training theme. It fails.


that means both sides of Imagineering failed. The imagination part fails, the engineering part fails.


Soarin works really really well, I wish they had built up a better theme around it.
The imagination part fails, therefore Imagineering fails


Kelly, you're bein way to critical. Wasn't the Railroad Imagineering?

No, the railroad is not part of Imagineering, at least not based on the Disney history. It's there because Walt liked trains

What about the Mine Train,

based on Imagineering's invention of tubular rollercoaster frame and greast theming, so both it's an Imagineering feat

or the Steam ship.

creating a steamship that's actually guided on rail, yet it feels like a real steamship. That's an Imagineering feat. It was never done before Disney too.

What about Main Street?

An inventive twist of forced perspective (both on the Y and Z axis, something that's never been done with actual building until Imagineering did it) plus great theming. A feat of Imagineering.


Imagineering isn't about new and fantastic technologies, although new technology is a great tool. It's about storytelling using the methods of film and stage.

No it's not.

The term "Imagineering" is a portmanteau word that combines "imagination" and "engineering." The term was coined by Richard F. Sailer in an in-house article written for the National Carbon Company Management Magazine, and reprinted by the Union Carbide Company. The article "BRAINSTORMING IS IMAGINation enginEERING" was published and copyrighted in 1957, and gravitated to Disney by unknown means. WED Enterprises applied for a trademark for the term in 1967, claiming first use in 1962.

[airlarry!]

No it's not.

The term "Imagineering" is a portmanteau word that combines "imagination" and "engineering." The term was coined by Richard F. Sailer in an in-house article written for the National Carbon Company Management Magazine, and reprinted by the Union Carbide Company. The article "BRAINSTORMING IS IMAGINation enginEERING" was published and copyrighted in 1957, and gravitated to Disney by unknown means. WED Enterprises applied for a trademark for the term in 1967, claiming first use in 1962.

Holy Avoid The Subject Batman!

[YoHo]

As an Electrical engineer, I can tell you that not every aspect of the job is innovative technologically.

And, the Steam engines were built from scratch by the studio under the control of WED enterprises. Your definition is too strict.

Mainstreet is a movie set. Plenty of real honest to goodness movies sets had forced perspective. Further, There were plenty of tunnel of love rides prior to the steamship and they ran on tracks underwater. That was a showmanship thing, not engineering.

And finally, Your talking about Big thunder Mountain, I'm talking about the Minetrain through nature's wonderland.

[Another Voice]

We're really just talking semantics.
Yes and no.

The whole “suspension of disbelief” effect, while the audience is willing to work with you on it, is still very difficult to pull of. It involves thousands of little nuances of sight, sound, smells, textures that all have to be perfectly balanced in order to work. That has traditionally been Disney’s strength – it’s why walking into the Polynesian Village resorts feels like you’re entering a unique world, but walking into the Paris Hotel in Vegas feels like you’re just walking into a glitzy hotel.

[Kelly Grannell]

And finally, Your talking about Big thunder Mountain, I'm talking about the Minetrain through nature's wonderland.

I honestly don't know what ride you're talking about then.

[MJMcBride]

Yes and no.

The whole “suspension of disbelief” effect, while the audience is willing to work with you on it, is still very difficult to pull of. It involves thousands of little nuances of sight, sound, smells, textures that all have to be perfectly balanced in order to work. That has traditionally been Disney’s strength – it’s why walking into the Polynesian Village resorts feels like you’re entering a unique world, but walking into the Paris Hotel in Vegas feels like you’re just walking into a glitzy hotel.

Why must you argue with me even when I agree with you. Sheesh.

[YoHo]

I honestly don't know what ride you're talking about then.


If you don't know what the Minetrain through nature's wonderland is, Walt's Favorite attraction (well, besides Wally Boag and the Golden Horseshoe), how can you have the background knowledge to know what is and isn't imagineering?

http://www.yesterland.com/minetrain.html

[Another Voice]

Why must you argue with me even when I agree with you. Sheesh.
I'm sorry, I'm not trying to agrue with you. I was just trying to expand on my comments. To me the problem with 'Mission: Space' is more than just the decision to make it a simulator simulator. I alos think there's flaws in it's execution.

That's also why I think 'Test Track' is more poplar. Everyone has thought "what would be it like to ride in one of the crash cars" from time to time. Maybe it's a guy thing - there isn't a boy out there does play "smash-up" with thier Hot Wheels. Through the extensive pre-show and the on-ride set design, you really do feel like you're riding in a test car (especially the 'crach test' acceleration room - everyone knows what's going to happen because we've all seem a thousand TV commericals filmed in the same room).

The only way Disney is going to get better is for people to understand the real difference between "good" and "not-so-good". An educated consumer base is the best support any business can have. That's especially true with Disney.

[mrsR123]

Slow down, AV! You're typing like a consultant today! ;)

[sanctumsolitude]

Just kill the Imageneering altogether. None of the new rides are innovative anyway. Most of the times their imaginations are tied by budgetary constraints, so what's the point of having that department.

Look at Stitch: a rehash of AE
Look at Soarin': it's an old IMAX technology already available in France for several years with a little tweaks (the only difference is the seating mechanism, the one by IMAX is actually better, the movie is projected in-front and BELOW the audience)
Look at Indy Jones, Dinosaur rides: based on Journey to the Centre of the Earth from Tokyo Disneyland, which was created by a third party private company hired by Tokyo Disneyland, which is only a Franchise of Disney -- not Disney owned park).
look at L,M,A!: It's cool, but uses old generic stunt cars technology from eons ago.

There is nothing new and imaginative coming from the Imagineering department anymore. Too bad.

Umm...

Stitch was an update to AE. It wasn't meant to be a completely new attraction.

Indiana Jones and Dinosaur are nothing like Journey to the Center of the Earth (which came after both of them). As mentioned, Journey to the Center of the Earth resembles Test Track more then anything else.

Its not like imagineering has always been about new and exciting technologies. Look at the teacups, at dumbo, at the variety of other "off-the-shelf" rides that we have come to love.

You want imagineering at its best? Go to Tokyo Disneyland and ride their Winnie the Pooh ride. That is a modern imagineering masterpiece.

[MJMcBride]

I'm sorry, I'm not trying to agrue with you. I was just trying to expand on my comments. To me the problem with 'Mission: Space' is more than just the decision to make it a simulator simulator. I alos think there's flaws in it's execution.

That's also why I think 'Test Track' is more poplar. Everyone has thought "what would be it like to ride in one of the crash cars" from time to time. Maybe it's a guy thing - there isn't a boy out there does play "smash-up" with thier Hot Wheels. Through the extensive pre-show and the on-ride set design, you really do feel like you're riding in a test car (especially the 'crach test' acceleration room - everyone knows what's going to happen because we've all seem a thousand TV commericals filmed in the same room).

The only way Disney is going to get better is for people to understand the real difference between "good" and "not-so-good". An educated consumer base is the best support any business can have. That's especially true with Disney.

I essentially agree with everything you say here. There may be flaws with the design but I think the attempted to create a fantasy (training to be an astronaut) and may have done a good job at that. I don't really know since I never been an astronaut. But my sense was, the ride was declining in popularity even before the tragedies.

I love Test Track. I think they did a great job on that ride.

And I love a good argument. Heck, I'm a lawyer.

[dbm20th]

I essentially agree with everything you say here. There may be flaws with the design but I think the attempted to create a fantasy (training to be an astronaut) and may have done a good job at that. I don't really know since I never been an astronaut. But my sense was, the ride was declining in popularity even before the tragedies.

Despite whatever spin you want to put on this, M:S did not decline in popularity because it didn't meet AV's standards of imaginative-ness. It declined because it was too intense and too often caused adverse physical effects, not meaning fatal ones, even for those who love thrill rides and ride regularly. Many came off feeling...not right, and didn't ride it 3 times a day like they do for so many others in WDW. Pile tons of bad press on that, and you have tiny lines, though I do hear the lines are better since the lighter version came in.

[raidermatt]

Despite whatever spin you want to put on this, M:S did not decline in popularity because it didn't meet AV's standards of imaginative-ness. It declined because it was too intense and too often caused adverse physical effects, not meaning fatal ones, even for those who love thrill rides and ride regularly.

Its a combination of the two.

And its not AV proclaiming the right level of imaginative-ness. Its AV pointing out that the ride doesn't meet the right level of imaginative-ness for enough people.

The ride is nearly pointless. Yes, the g's are a neat feeling. But it really does stop there for a lot of people (those that don't get ill).

First off, some sort of ride where you are meant to believe you ARE travelling in outerspace would have much wider appeal from the get go. More people want to truly experience the wonders of space than want to know how the g's feel. Star Tours, Mission to Mars and even Space Mountain don't try to show you what its like to simulate a simulator. They go for the story and adventure aspect, and that's a big part of their success.

But we are talking about the execution of the simulation of a simulator.

There's problems in that area as well. Sure, there's some appeal in getting to pretend you are an astronaut in training, but other than what we all know is a watered down physical effect, it doesn't even pull that off.

We have no real control over any aspect of the flight. They give us the obviously phony instrutions about pushing 2 buttons, then tell all 4 of us to steer the ship at once? Its a transparent attempt at finding some kind of interactiveness. Certainly it adds nothing to the repeatability of the attraction.

Then there's the graphics, which are not well done at all. If that's the quality astronauts really see, then this would have been a good time to veer away from reality.

It just doesn't stimulate the imagination of most people.


Test Track has the same conceptual problem, but I do have to admit it executes its mission better. It does seem to give you some sense of what its like to be in a test car.

They just could have done so much better by using the same ride mech and making the thing into a REAL story, be it a James Bond type of car chase, some sort of futuristic transportation story, whatever.

[YoHo]

If I want to Imagine I'm an Astronaught in training, I'll go to space camp which has much more imersiveness to it. (Or I would go, if I weren't too old to go to space camp.

[Kelly Grannell]

And its not AV proclaiming the right level of imaginative-ness. Its AV pointing out that the ride doesn't meet the right level of imaginative-ness for enough people.

The ride is nearly pointless. Yes, the g's are a neat feeling. But it really does stop there for a lot of people (those that don't get ill).

First off, some sort of ride where you are meant to believe you ARE travelling in outerspace would have much wider appeal from the get go. More people want to truly experience the wonders of space than want to know how the g's feel. Star Tours, Mission to Mars and even Space Mountain don't try to show you what its like to simulate a simulator. They go for the story and adventure aspect, and that's a big part of their success.

But we are talking about the execution of the simulation of a simulator.

There's problems in that area as well. Sure, there's some appeal in getting to pretend you are an astronaut in training, but other than what we all know is a watered down physical effect, it doesn't even pull that off.

We have no real control over any aspect of the flight. They give us the obviously phony instrutions about pushing 2 buttons, then tell all 4 of us to steer the ship at once? Its a transparent attempt at finding some kind of interactiveness. Certainly it adds nothing to the repeatability of the attraction.

Then there's the graphics, which are not well done at all. If that's the quality astronauts really see, then this would have been a good time to veer away from reality.

It just doesn't stimulate the imagination of most people.


Test Track has the same conceptual problem, but I do have to admit it executes its mission better. It does seem to give you some sense of what its like to be in a test car.

They just could have done so much better by using the same ride mech and making the thing into a REAL story, be it a James Bond type of car chase, some sort of futuristic transportation story, whatever.


And those two examples, my friends, are good reasons to kill Imagineering department. They simply don't execute their job properly.

[Another Voice]

Despite whatever spin you want to put on this, M:S did not decline in popularity because it didn't meet AV's standards of imaginative-ness.
It never developed any popularity in the first place.

[Horace Horsecollar]

And those two examples, my friends, are good reasons to kill Imagineering department. They simply don't execute their job properly.
Ah, but there's a big difference between the decision makers and the practitioners.

If the decision makers — the Disney executives above WDI who decide how to spend Disney's capital — are only willing to pay for the cheaper "it's good enough" options, then that's all that WDI will be able to deliver.

One day, I wish the top Disney executives would say, "WDI, We need another attraction that captures the public's imagination the way that Pirates, Small World, and Haunted Mansion did in the 1960s; don't be foolish with money, but you'll get the budget you need to do it right. People don't spend thousands of dollars on Disney vacations because of Dinorama." I have no doubt that Imagineers would rise to the task, with a combination of internal resources and qualified contractors (often former Disney Imagineers).

Unfortunately, the executive direction has been along the lines of, "We need a Pooh ride because Pooh sells merchandise. So shoehorn a cheap Pooh ride into an existing building, and make sure we can run it with the same number of people as the ride it replaces."

So is it right to blame the skilled artists, writers, designers, and engineers? Or does the blame belong somewhere else?

[Kelly Grannell]

Ah, but there's a big difference between the decision makers and the practitioners.

If the decision makers — the Disney executives above WDI who decide how to spend Disney's capital — are only willing to pay for the cheaper "it's good enough" options, then that's all that WDI will be able to deliver.

One day, I wish the top Disney executives would say, "WDI, We need another attraction that captures the public's imagination the way that Pirates, Small World, and Haunted Mansion did in the 1960s; don't be foolish with money, but you'll get the budget you need to do it right. People don't spend thousands of dollars on Disney vacations because of Dinorama." I have no doubt that Imagineers would rise to the task, with a combination of internal resources and qualified contractors (often former Disney Imagineers).

Unfortunately, the executive direction has been along the lines of, "We need a Pooh ride because Pooh sells merchandise. So shoehorn a cheap Pooh ride into an existing building, and make sure we can run it with the same number of people as the ride it replaces."

So is it right to blame the skilled artists, writers, designers, and engineers? Or does the blame belong somewhere else?


But I'm not blaming the Imagineers, only the Imagineering Department. If the head honcho is going to keep cutting budget, keep cutting the true abilities of the Imagineers, why bother having an Imagineering Department.

Imagineering Department was created to be creative, but if the creativity keeps being stifled by budgetary constraints (or political, or whatever), what's the point of having it, right?

[Horace Horsecollar]

Imagineering Department was created to be creative, but if the creativity keeps being stifled by budgetary constraints (or political, or whatever), what's the point of having it, right?
The reality today seems to be that the "point of having" WDI is to coordinate and manage work that is increasingly performed by outside companies. After all, over a billion dollars per year is invested in the five Disney resorts (with 11 major theme parks) around the globe. Even when outside contractors perform much of the work, Disney is ultimately responsible.

Creativity is a separate issue. For example, the executives who made the decisions about California Adventure's layout, themed areas, imagery, and attractions — too many clones, lack of compelling and original "E Tickets" — made many poor choices. The wrong people were in charge. But there was still a need for Disney resources to implement those questionable decisions (and to sneak in some charming details). So there's still a need for an Imagineering department.

Ideally, we will see better direction and decision making in the future. So far, Robert Iger seems to saying and doing the right things. And John Lasseter seems to be the perfect choice for Chief Creative Officer. It remains to be seen whether The Walt Disney Company is really willing to invest properly in the future of Disney's theme parks. It takes more money to design and build unique, 21st century "E Ticket" attractions than to spread clones of existing attractions or to decorate "off the shelf" rides.